A Call to Unity, Peace and Purity: Section 4
- Steven W. Williams
- Apr 16
- 47 min read
Updated: Aug 31
Section 4: Hope for the Church: Returning to the Scene of the Crime
In Isaiah 11 the prophet looks to a time when the world will one day be at peace and harmony which ultimately depicts the longed-for future of Christ’s reign. In verse 6 we read “… and a little child shall lead them.” While various theological interpretations of this passage have been proposed, one thing that stands out is that the portrayal of “children” is often depicted throughout the Scriptures as those who are either “innocent” or “unsuspecting”. Sometimes, when trying to find solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, it is often the simple, the obvious, that is staring us straight in the face that we seemly cannot see. We often search for solutions far more complex than necessary. Certainly, we may gain much from the “experts”, those highly knowledgeable with several academic degrees behind their names, in assisting us in finding a way forward. And yet, the way forward may be so obvious that even a child can indicate the clearest path.
As has been stated, this manifesto is certainly not one that many of those in academia will readily endorse. It is not heavily undergirded by documentation and elaborate argumentation or set forth as some apologetic. It is purposely intended for the common reader as a rather straightforward call to repentance for the Church to cast off the chains of Religion and take hold of Christ and His Revelation in the hope of aligning His people with Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17). In doing so, the Church must return to the obvious, one that even a child can easily point to. We must return to the “Garden”, the scene of the original crime. It is here that we encounter the root cause and can find the answer as to why the Church has had so much difficulty in becoming more unified, purer, and more at peace.
Again, it is the “Garden Problem” that the leaders of the Church must see as the fundamental problem under which God’s people have suffered. It is the Church that has continually been deceived by Satan with the same original confrontation; that is, God cannot be fully trusted in providing His people with credible and sufficient information to live a life pleasing to Him. As has been previously stated, we find this basic formula of Satan’s deception leading Eve to doubt God: 1) To question the credibility of God’s Word or one’s ability to comprehend God’s Word or 2) To infer the inadequacy of God’s Word as not being fully complete or sufficient for one to live in obedience to God; thus, in need of amending or of further clarification. This rebellion in doubting God, giving into the temptation “to be like God”, ushered in the Fall of Man resulting in the rise of Humanism. Regretfully, the chief culprit responsible for this worldview becoming syncretized into the life of the Church must be ascribed to those leaders who have led God’s people astray.
A case has been proposed that one of the most divisive elements in the Church today are those expressions that exclusively claim to be the “true church” or the “fullness of the church”, thus making all other expressions either irrelevant or minimized. These expressions have historically been held as the guiltiest parties in sowing the seeds of discord among God’s people. Again, this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Church as being intrinsically institutional rather than organic in nature. An institutional perspective defines the Church as being based primarily upon that of form, or the “What” of the Church whereas a biblical perspective defines the Church as being based primarily upon that of organic content, or the “Who” of the Church. Nevertheless, by regaining a proper perspective on the definition of the Church, it can be hoped that substantive progress can be made in the coming years.
Division among Christians has been Satan’s primary strategy to make the Christian Faith a matter of confusion rather than a matter of hope for all of humanity. The solution is to try to rid the people of God from this ongoing conflict. When there is conflict, there needs to be a way forward. Thankfully, the Scriptures (as well as many social scientists) attest to how matters of conflict can be understood and how to deal with such situations.
Sometimes conflict can be handled by avoidance. Normally, avoidance of conflict is only recommended as a temporary short-term solution to a potentially threatening situation. Examples may be found in Jesus escaping through the crowd (John 10:39) or the apostle Paul escaping over a wall (Acts 9:23-25). These examples do not reflect cowardness on the part of Jesus or Paul, but rather a temporary way of handling a situation when the time for confrontation was not helpful for the moment.
Another way of handling conflict might be through direct competition with an opposing party, fighting for one’s position over that of the opposing party. We find such an instance in Acts 15:36-41 where Paul and Barnabas could not reach an agreement regarding whether to take John Mark on their second missionary journey. In the end, the two apostles parted ways, refusing to give in to the demands of the other. Thankfully, the conflict worked itself out, in the end, resulting in two missionary teams being formed with Paul and John Mark finding themselves eventually reconciled (Colossians 4:10; II Timothy 4:11).
Sometimes, the best way to handle conflict is through accommodation where one party simply gives in to the other party. Because of his previous opposition to the Christian Faith and attacks upon Christians, the apostle Paul was initially rejected by the Church (Acts 9:26-28). However, after hearing the testimony of Barnabas, the Church changed her position and welcomed Paul.
Also, there are times when a compromise is made. In Acts 15:1-21 the Church reached the decision that Gentile male believers were not required to be circumcised. Yet, soon thereafter, in Acts 16:1-5, we find Timothy (a Gentile believer) agreeing to be circumcised because of his witness before the Jews. While Timothy was not giving up his right not to be circumcised, because of more important matters, he compromised this right to be more effective in ministry.
While the above approaches to handling conflict may be utilized given different situations, the most promising way forward in dealing with conflictual matters is through cooperation. To effectively cooperate, parties in conflict must look outside of themselves and find a “third way” to work through conflict. One of the best examples of cooperation can be found in Acts 6:1-6 regarding a disagreement over how to address the social concerns of the Church. In this situation, some Gentile believers were complaining and demanding that the Apostles address the practical needs of their widows. The Apostles, seeing that their primary ministry was that of teaching the Word of God, decided to create the office of deacon to handle the practical needs of the Church. In this way, a new creative solution was found to provide for the demands of both parties. Both parties, by trusting one another and investing in looking for a solution beyond merely defending their present positions, a way forward was discovered. (See Appendices B: Thinking Outside the Box and C: The Concept of a “Multiverse” as helpful examples).
Unlike recent ecumenical movements which tend to overlook theological differences for the sake of unity, what I am proposing is a perspective that aligns more with what the heart of Christ’s high priestly prayer intends. As previously stated, this perspective is not found by adhering to a particular tradition, denomination, or movement. It is a perspective that seeks not only unity but also the peace and purity of His Church. It is the true meaning of One Church. Rather than overlook theological differences, such a perspective seeks unity founded upon theological Truth derived from divine revelation, the Scriptures. Such a perspective holds that the Scriptures are completely reliable and sufficient in establishing doctrine for the faith and life of the Christian. This is the fundamental reason why God gave His people such revelation.
While insight can be gained from non-scriptural sources which may be supportive in the application of doctrine; doctrine is not to be derived from these sources. It must be noted that Satan, since the Garden, has continually tempted God’s people and led them astray by telling them that what God says is either inadequate or cannot be rightly understood. There must be something more or something else needed. This is where Satan introduces “truth” appearing as an angel of light (II Corinthians 11:14) but in reality, is counterfeit, twisting God’s Truth. This counterfeit is what essentially divides the Church. The Church’s hope lies in identifying what is counterfeit and consequently ridding the Church of such error. Opposing parties must cooperate by looking beyond themselves and looking to God for the solution. God has given us His divine revelation, His Word (the Logos), as the sufficient foundation for what it is that comprises the Christian Faith. While Christ is the human incarnation of the Logos, the Bible is the God-breathed written Logos.
The initial place to start would be by Cultivating a Christian Faith Perspective within the Church. Such a perspective would be beyond any particular tradition, denomination or movement and would seriously invest in reclaiming the Church from religion and philosophy (both being derived from human imagination) that have so often permeated the community of God’s people since the Garden. This perspective would be consistent with a truly Christian Theistic worldview founded upon the Word of God (“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17). It would be faithful to the Scriptures as verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings as being fully trustworthy in all that is stated while holding to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic established upon the understanding that in being God’s Word, the Scriptures are self-interpreting, infallible, and are the final authority in governing Christian faith and life (I Thessalonians 2:13; II Timothy 3:16; II Peter 1:21).
Such a perspective would be committed to “equipping the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:12-13). It would strive, if at all possible, to bring the reclamation of the Christian faith from within one’s tradition, denomination or movement while not readily abandoning one’s tradition, denomination or movement unless there is an undue hardening of hearts against any significant change (e.g. total incompatibility of the new with the old – Matthew 9:16-17; Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-39). At the same time, those seeking to reclaim the Christian faith would naturally find themselves increasingly associating with others who are like-minded across all expressions to find mutual encouragement and further dialogue. And finally, by praying for the Holy Spirit to purify the Church based upon His revelation, will God’s people come to see that any reclamation of the Christian faith is wholly dependent upon Him as the “founder and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2).
Secondly, by Restoring the Scriptures to God’s People, such a perspective would treasure the Word of God to be held fast in the hearts and minds of the people of God. It is sometimes questioned as to why the Scriptures are so important to the Christian faith. According to the Christian trinitarian concept of the Godhead, the Person of the Father is commonly set forth as the intrinsic nature of the essence of the Godhead, the Person of the Son (Logos) as the expression of that essence and the Person of the Holy Spirit as the efficacy of that essence. This is not to be understood as modalism where God is depicted in three forms, but as one God consisting of three persons, co-equal and eternal, having that same essence. While the Son is the living expression of the godhead who through the person of Jesus became human, the Scriptures (The Word or Logos) are the written expression of God’s divine revelation to His people.
It is through this revelatory Truth, in propositional form, that God’s people can come to know that which comprises the Christian faith. It is by the Holy Spirit that this divine Truth becomes efficacious in our lives. Therefore, it is paramount that God’s people have ready access to read and study the Scriptures. They are called to learn in a community wherein they also have accountability. Such a community would naturally seek to provide resources to be made available for proper study and in gaining a proper hermeneutic (model for interpretation). Finally, they would learn to apply God’s Word to live the Christian life and as a witness before the watching world.
Thirdly, and perhaps the most important aspect in unifying the Church, is in Upholding the Reliability and Sufficiency of the Scriptures. It must be insisted that the Scriptures alone are reliable and sufficient for determining the doctrines of the Christian faith. Even so, this is not to say that outside information can be informative and helpful in applying the Christian faith to everyday life. Nevertheless, it must be held that the primary reason behind God giving His people special or divine revelation is that humans were not intended to determine the authoritative doctrines of the faith. To do so would be slipping into humanism as humans would seek to share a claim to God’s exclusive authority; hence, the Garden Problem. Humanism is expressed in the form of philosophical humanism or religious humanism. Again, “progressives” and “liberals” tend to lean toward philosophical humanism by looking to the world regarding the Scriptures. On the other hand, “traditionalists” and “legalists” may lean toward religious humanism insisting that God has given humans (i.e., church leaders) the authority to “enrich” the Christian faith by expanding beyond the Scriptures, eventually establishing well-intended traditions that would eventually equal the Scriptures in importance.
This manifesto declares that we cultivate a common perspective of seeing Christ’s Church reclaimed beyond the factions that we have created over the past two millennia. Certainly, such a perspective will significantly challenge those who tenaciously place their identity and security in their particular tradition, denomination or movement. Without a doubt, coming to grips with the fact that there may be more beyond what one has known or experienced and that the possibility of a more united, peaceful, and pure Church can be realized may be difficult to imagine. Regretfully, it is to be expected that many may find it more comforting to simply retreat into the past.
While not intending to be prophetic, it is interesting to note that approximately every half-millennium God seems to bring His people to a highly significant place of reckoning.
For example: (*denoting approximate dates):
• 2081* BCE Abrahamic Covenant
• 1446* BCE Mosaic Covenant
• 1010* BCE Davidic Covenant
• 537* BCE Return from Exile/Captivity
• 05* BCE Advent of Christ
• 451 CE Chalcedonian Schism
• 1054 CE Great East-West Schism
• 1517 CE Reformation of the Church
• 20?? CE Reclamation of the Christian Faith and Reconciliation of the Church
Could it be possible, that in this new millennium, God could be bringing His people together in a “reconciliation” of His Church? Could it be that people are finally so weary and disheartened regarding the divisions among us that we would be willing to bring everything and place it on the table for an honest discussion? Could the theological elite among us humble themselves to the point of turning over their particular “reins of power” and lay all of it at the foot of the Cross? Could people ever come to find their real identity and security in Christ as far greater in importance than in their particular tradition, denomination or movement? How long do we, the people of God, have to continually suffer division at the hands of Man?
So, what could Christ be trying to do with His Church now that it has been two thousand years since His Advent here on earth? Certainly, there must be some plan. Thankfully, there is a plan. As hinted at earlier, we find His plan in Ephesians 5:25-27 where Christ is seeking to sanctify His Church:
“… as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish”.
Christ is in the process of purifying His Church. How is He doing this? By His Word. He is calling His people to break free from the captivity of religion and seek freedom through His revelation as found in the Scriptures. In Titus 2:14 this concept of Christ “purifying” His Church is further emphasized as being under His redemptive plan.
In recent years, as I travel across the globe, I continually sense a yearning of God’s people - regardless of denomination, tradition, or movement – toward somehow finding a way forward in overcoming the divisions among us, yet without relinquishing Truth. Years ago, when most Christians had almost given up on the possibility of any global change ever taking place within the universal Church, many witnessed what has been called the “charismatic movement”. Although, no doubt, there have been many legitimate theological and psychological concerns about numerous aspects of such a “movement”; nevertheless, it cannot be denied that “something” was happening that transcended denominational boundaries throughout the world and gave hope to many that Christ could truly unite the Church. It is from observing this phenomenon, that many realized that it could certainly be possible for the Spirit of God to move in such a way that His people could be affected globally. And, if God is in the business of seeking to purify His Church, then neither denominations nor traditions will ever be able to prevent this from happening.
Honestly, it would be thrilling to one day be able to find rest in simply being a “Christian” without having to specify anything else – Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Charismatic – whatever. While it is quite doubtful that this generation will see any major shift, it would be this hope that many today would like to leave to their children, grandchildren, and the generations to come. Divisions have been continuously caused by those on both ends of the spectrum – those who continually divide the Church by picking the Church apart and “splitting hairs” over every minute issue as well as by those who divide the Church by stubbornly holding to their particular tradition or denomination exclusively as the “true church”. We must always keep in mind that in the Scriptures our Lord never called anyone to establish a particular tradition or denomination. He saw His Church as being one body. How can we ever hope to move forward and be a part of the solution and not remain a part of the problem? How can we seek peace and unity while also joining others in the sanctification of His Church? Certainly, only by humility, repentance, prayer and in seeking His face (II Chronicles 7:14).
Reconciliation and Reclamation of the Family
Since time began, humanity has consistently been led back to the connection between “faith” and “family” in God’s economy regarding how He has ordered this world. Why do social scientists repeatedly acknowledge how the family is the building block of society – as it is often stated, “so goes the family, so goes society”? And by family, it is not the relatively recent definition of family as that of the “nuclear” family consisting of only parents and children; but of the historical family as it has been expressed across all cultures and within the context of the Scriptures that today is often called the “extended” family consisting of grandparents, grandchildren, uncles and aunts, cousins, and in-laws. It is this larger family that has always been the foundation of society in that merely a “nuclear” family could never fulfil all that is required from a supportive network.
While the smaller husband-wife-child unit would certainly have particular dynamics as a man and woman would “leave and cleave”, this would not reflect an alienation from the larger family system. A nuclear family structure would have been considered merely a small fragment of what a “family” would entail. The term “nuclear family” only first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1925 CE and the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1947 CE and gradually came to define a “typical family” paralleling the rise of industrialization, urbanization, and individualism, particularly in the West, where people leave extended family systems residing in more rural and small-town communities as a response to the changing economic landscape and vocational opportunities found in cities. Moreover, the norm of the extended family found in cities in earlier times also changed significantly with industrialization where work and home life became increasingly separate worlds.
Adding to this trend, young adults of recent years might be described as the “friends” generation, heavily influenced by television sit-coms such as Seinfeld, Friends and The Big Bang Theory. These television programs, although admittedly quite humorous, model adulthood as a community of notoriously immature and dysfunctional individuals stumbling along trying to find their way in life. Any notion of belonging to an extended biological family system is minimal at best and more often being completely absent. The clear message is that in being an adult, friends are more important to life than family.
Sadly, because so many modern families of such individuals have become so dysfunctional and weak in influence, these “friends” have often come to replace the biological family. This is not to say that having friends is in any way a bad thing. The Scriptures attest to how having solid friends can be a blessing (Proverbs 27:6, 9-10). Even so, in no way do the Scriptures ever teach that biological families are to be minimized or replaced in importance by friends. The biological family is designed by God as the foundation of social order and integral to the Church. Even well-meaning Christians have at times misinterpreted the Scriptures in such a manner as to present Jesus as being somehow demeaning of the biological family and only prioritizing the “spiritual” family of believers. This is far from what Jesus would ever suggest. We must remember that Jesus was God incarnate and as God, He created the biological family by design as foundational to all of life. By Jesus deliberately comparing one’s love for Him as needing to exceed one’s love for one’s biological family, He was reinforcing the importance of the biological family and one’s love for it. Only one’s love for God Himself was to exceed this love. All believers, including those in the biological family, join together to form an eternal spiritual family.
Furthermore, it is important to note that “marriage” throughout most of human history was never just an individual affair. It was always a matter of uniting biological families, whether a marriage was prearranged or not. The very worst insult, not to mention a great dishonor, would be for two individuals to come together and then somehow independently “announce” to their families that they were getting married. In many cultures, this would not only be unthinkable but would incur great wrath and a probable penalty from both families as well as the entire community. Marriage, representing both families, stressed the importance of a union in passing down the very essence and testimony of all they would hold dear and for which the two families stood. Even throughout biblical history, marriage was completely a matter between families and even though it is a covenantal relationship founded by God, marriage was, in fact, originally celebrated as a civil ceremony. In the Western world, the marriage ceremony did not even include a clergy member until 1184 CE when the Council or Synod of Verona made marriage a sacrament in which a priest was to be present. Later in 1563 CE, the Council of Trent added the requirement of a priest and two witnesses. Only in the 16th century was a marriage ceremony allowed to be held inside a church building.
Even though the importance of family did not negate the importance of the individual, any honorable individual would define themselves within the context of their family. Any two individuals contemplating marriage would never conceive of embarking on such a course without the full support and involvement of family from the very beginning of the relationship and throughout the course of their lives. Adults “leaving and cleaving” in establishing themselves as a separate unit was never to be understood as necessarily moving any great distance geographically as the larger family system was both an economic and social community. Furthermore, this would never mean an “emotional cut-off” nor any sense of alienation between the couple and their families of origin. The marital couple growing up in Christian families would continue to honor their parents by living their lives in obedience to the beliefs and values to which their parents raised them and passing these on to their children. The apostle Paul even depicted an “evil generation” as comprising adults who were “disobedient to parents” (Romans 1:30; II Timothy 3:2). Indeed, it was the larger family system that was to be the primary instrument in preserving the Christian faith as commonly shared with the larger Christian community, Christ’s Church.
Reconciliation and Reclamation of Community
Over the past century, people have genuinely suffered greatly because of the increasing deficit of truly belonging to an intimate community of people. Much of this has been due to the continual geographic displacement of people often because of changing economic and vocational demands. However, this has also been exacerbated by an inordinate overemphasis on the individual at the expense of all else. There was once a time when an individual would choose a vocation based upon the impact the vocational choice would have on the family, realizing that certain vocations might separate them from the larger family system or that the vocation in and of itself was not “family-friendly”.
Today it has almost become commonplace to disregard the larger family system when deciding upon a vocation. Sadly, much of Christianity has also largely succumbed to the thinking of this world. Vocational choice has become highly individualistic where the only criteria of choice are for each person to reach their potential, regardless of anything or anyone else. Even when one is uniquely gifted for a certain vocation, often how this is to be fulfilled is encouraged from quite an individualistic perspective rather than how this fulfilment can be accomplished in the light of the larger family or surrounding community.
Furthermore, a matter of increasing concern is the formation of the future generation. How will our children and grandchildren be raised and educated? What will they need to know and how will they relate to the world around them, especially as this world becomes increasingly less Christian and where the Church is depicted as being irrelevant to society as a whole? Nevertheless, this problem is certainly not new. Even Christian 18th-century social activist William Wilberforce shared this common concern:
I hope you don’t think I am being arrogant or overly harsh on cultural Christians. Look at the facts. Do cultural Christians view the Christian faith as important enough to make a priority when teaching their children what they believe and why they believe it? Or do they place greater emphasis on their children getting a good education than on learning about the things of God? Would they be embarrassed if their children did not possess the former while basically being indifferent about the latter? If their children have any understanding of the Christian faith at all, they probably have acquired it on their own. If the children view themselves as Christians, it is probably not because they have studied the facts and come to a point of intellectual conviction but because their family is Christian, so they believe they must be Christian also. The problem with this way of thinking is that authentic faith cannot be inherited. When Christianity is viewed in this way, intelligent and energetic young men and women will undoubtedly reach a point where they question the truth of Christianity and, when challenged, will abandon this “inherited” faith that they cannot defend. They might begin to associate with peers who are unbelievers. In this company, they will find themselves unable to respond to objections to Christianity with which they are confronted. Had they really known what they believe and why they believe it, these kinds of encounters would not shake their faith one bit. 10
Wilberforce recognized, that even while living in a time when family and community were more honored and where Christianity was more culturally influential, the need for laying a firm foundation for posterity was not to be an option. It is without question that in today’s environment, it is even more imperative that Christians develop spiritual, economic, and educational communities in contrast to those of the world. Yet, while doing so, we must also continually remember that the Church is called to be “salt and light” to the world (Matthew 5:13-16) and an agent for godly transformation.
What this means for the Christian community beyond the family is a matter of increasing concern. How do we as a community live in a culture that is less supportive or even antagonistic to the Christian faith? How do we do business? How do we educate? How do we care for one another? And of course, how do we interact with the culture in which we live as being “in the world” but not “of the world”? Will we remove our children from educational institutions that intentionally indoctrinate children with beliefs and values that stand in direct opposition to those of the Christian faith? Will we start our own schools or become homeschoolers? What if such schools or even homeschooling itself becomes outlawed as it presently done in some countries? What if Christians are discriminated against in being employed? Do we start our own businesses? What about where we live and the high cost of housing? What if we find ourselves as a community needing to purchase large sections of land and build our own houses? Will normal Christians come to one day find themselves being depicted by the world as being some sort of “religious cult”? Will Christians find themselves living as they once did in the days of the early Church, being considered “outcasts” in a world in which they once considered themselves as being “normal”? These are just some of the challenges that will undoubtedly face Christ’s Bride in the generations ahead.
Reconciliation and Reclamation of the Organized Church
This trend in being a more individualized culture has not left the Church unaffected. In times past God’s people always dwelt in community with one another, representing a spiritual family. As an increasingly individualized lifestyle has permeated all areas of society, much of local church life today mirrors less interdependence among God’s people where people now generally experience “going to church” as merely an isolated event during the week rather than a people living in close community with ongoing interaction with one another.
As early as the time of Moses, the leadership structure for God’s people was in the hands of elders, adult men in a community chosen by the people to represent them. These elders came from among individual families, family systems, clans and tribes. These elders held their authority in conciliar groupings, or councils, each being vetted to their office by meeting a particular set of criteria. This governmental structure was representative of the people while not succumbing to an unfettered democratic structure based entirely on peer popularity and certainly not an autocratic structure reflecting a hierarchical order chosen from within itself unaccountable to the people. This governmental structure was designed to function as firmly upholding God as being the overarching authority from which all governing was to be established; thus, a government being grounded in Theism.
Regretfully, this structure was later greatly altered as God’s people turned from His eldership rule and sought to be like the surrounding world, giving themselves over to monarchism. While God warned His people against doing this, He nevertheless chose to temporarily accommodate their request. Although knowing the disastrous result of such a human autocratic system, nevertheless, He would utilize the system to usher in and restore Himself as their true King in the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. It is with this understanding that the Apostles restored God in Christ as their true king under the representative leadership of elders. It is within this structure that the Church must return.
Such an eldership structure is one in which God’s people nominate those whom they would choose to lead them according to scriptural criteria (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). These nominees are then examined by those in leadership holding to the same criteria and then placed before the people for a final decision before the appointment. This similar pattern is found in the Old Testament in the choosing of leaders under Moses (Deuteronomy 1:9-18), in the selection of the apostolic successor of Judas (Acts 1:15-26) and in the choosing of deacons (Acts 6:1-6; I Timothy 1:8-13)). This leadership structure thus avoids the extremes of either hierarchical authoritarianism or unfettered democratic popularity contests. Only vetted leaders are chosen by the people. Leaders are accountable to the people and may be removed by the people. Elders serve local communities as well as possibly serving with larger oversight (i.e., bishops) as attested from early church history. Assisting elders/bishops are those who are called deacons (diákonos, Gk., or servant, minister). The office of deacon was established in Acts 6 when the Apostles found themselves unable to meet all the practical ministry demands of the local church.
This manifesto is calling upon God’s people to rise up and hold all denominations, traditions and movements to account. God’s people deserve far better than the mess that has been made of the Church. We need to demand, even to the point of walking out by voting with our feet, a Church who would come to realize that the only hope is to start by becoming humble and move beyond a purely institutional mindset by turning to God’s Word and rediscovering a Church who will aspire to once again be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”. The Church of the Scriptures is neither “Eastern” nor “oriental” nor “Roman” nor “protestant”. Such labels have never been helpful. Even the term “protestant” was thrust upon those former Catholics who sought reform as a “protest” against many of the doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism. Luther preferred the German term evangelisch (evangelical – derived from euangelion, Gk., or “good news/gospel”) while Calvin preferred either this term or “reformed” (réformé, Fr.). Yet, again, we must move beyond such labels. Those from the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox world must come to grips with the fact that they do not “own” the concept of “orthodoxy” as those from Roman Catholicism do not “own” the concept of “catholicity”. Likewise, Protestants are not the only evangelicals on the planet.
As been stated, the first step toward reclamation and consolidation of God’s people is simply not to just walk away from the particular denomination, tradition, or movement that one may be associated with but rather attempt to influence one’s present community in “moving beyond” long-held mindsets that only shut down and prevent any progress. Understandably, this will be most difficult among those expressions who stubbornly insist their group being exclusive in defining themselves as the “true church” in that such exclusive claims, by default, only produce division. Such bodies, tragically, may simply never be able to find any reason whatsoever to ever give up their long-held claims of exclusivity. It may be that such bodies will eventually be left to themselves and suffer their own fate. If one finds oneself in such a situation, it would be strongly suggested that such a person look elsewhere where more hope can be fostered. It is particularly these bodies that Satan seeks to allure God’s people away from the Christian faith to an expression that only perpetuates disunity. Sadly, many such bodies have become so deeply saturated in Religion to the point that they become unable to see that they have played into Satan’s deception. Again, any form of a highly institutionalized Religion is extremely attractive, especially to those who find themselves drifting in insecurity, trying to find a place to belong or call “home”, in the hope of gaining a sense of safety and identity. Alarmingly, our Lord Jesus warns that the dreadful day will come when Satan deceives and leads many astray, if possible, even the elect, into following false expressions of the true faith only to find themselves ushering in their own destruction (Matthew 24;22-25; Mark 13:20-23).
Some Practical Application
Now, it may be asked, “Well, all of this sounds quite lofty and theoretical, but what can one actually do to help move the Church forward?” Without a common worldview as a foundation, little true progress can be made. The following suggestions are offered as ways to “perturb” the present entrenched thinking of so many.
First of all, any lasting change must begin within our own minds and hearts. We, ourselves, must become fully convinced that our Lord is calling His Church to unity, peace, and purity to the point that we are willing to face some discomforting questions and take a very honest, vulnerable but courageous look at whom we have understood the Church to be. If one only sees the Church as an exclusive highly institutionalized organization held together by a rigidly structured governmental elite body, often operationalized by a hierarchical authoritarian system with a plethora of rules and regulations; then, this sort of limited understanding will be difficult to overcome.
Such an understanding normally authorizes a great deal of power to those in leadership, and to be candid, those to whom such power is given rarely desire to relinquish this power very easily. Alas, if we gain any lesson from history, it is to be expected that every effort will be made by those in power within such systems to adamantly continue to try to justify and legitimize their particular system. Likewise, such systems can be quite deceptive to those who would rather turn over power to such a system by the seductive offer of providing a sense of certainty and security, assuming that any other option would only languish in the “too hard” basket. It will take those who are willing to courageously search the Scriptures and discover that such an understanding of the Church is simply not found in the Bible. While the Church can be said to be “institutional” in the sense that she is “instituted” by Christ as the family is also “instituted”, the biblical Church is fundamentally organic and is likened to that of an intimate family with members serving together responsibly, each with their unique gifts and fulfilling particular roles, all being treated with respect and dignity with each member enjoying a rich relationship with Christ and with one another. Leadership is representative, chosen by the people in lending oversight and being held as examples before others (I Peter 5:2-3). Local churches are held accountable to one another through conciliar representation in fraternal relationships. In may be that instead of being part of a denomination, churches may seek to establish “fellowship arrangements” with like-minded local churches whereby more intimate fellowship and accountability can be established between churches. A common Statement of Faith held by these local churches could enable theological unity. (See Appendix F).
Furthermore, those desiring to see the Church flourish in the future should first attempt to stay within their present tradition, denomination or movement and seek ways to bring change from within. The goal is not to start some new group and certainly not attempt to go out and establish some extreme expression with a cultic following. The first place for discussion is within families as members of families seek to educate and involve one another in change. In the church community, parishioners and leadership need to work together toward a brighter future in an attempt to move thinking beyond the status quo. Even so, sadly, it may be that one may eventually need to join another particular established expression of the Church that is better positioned to move the Church forward if there appears to be little hope of change within one’s original community. Ultimately, it is to be hoped that like-minded communities would come together and identify themselves beyond their present narrow labels. Ultimately, uniting in a more global body that would also allow local expression would certainly be ideal. However, the goal is to not sacrifice purity for the sake of unity.
An agreed-upon, unified standard measure for “purity” must be established. One must adhere to a theistic worldview, understanding that Truth is firmly grounded in Revelation and not in Religion. All authority for what is to be “pure” must begin with this understanding. The Scriptures are God’s revelation to humanity and must be understood to be the final and sufficient basis for all that is deemed to be true for living the Christian faith. If any other such authority could have ever existed, there would have been no reason why God would have sought to give us the Scriptures. Furthermore, a corollary to this understanding is that a solid hermeneutic is essential to rightly interpret the Scriptures. And while no interpretation is infallible, a faithful interpretation can certainly be attained.
Again, it must be emphasized that one must begin by adhering to a truly Christian theistic worldview founded upon Revelation, not Religion. Following this perspective, it must also be acknowledged that a standard must be established as to what Truth is and that this Truth standard must be the ultimate authority for what to be the understanding and practice of the Christian faith. As stated above, it is to be argued that the standard for this authority must only be in God’s Revelation as found in His Word, the Holy Scriptures. One cannot serve two masters, both the Scriptures and Tradition, with each being equal in authority in determining the Christian faith. In the end, one source will win out. If it is held that a particular interpretation of Scripture found only in one’s tradition is the final authority, one would be concluding that the final authority lies with human tradition. It would be more consistent to simply state that the Scriptures are contained in and serve as a part of Tradition. Regretfully, this direction in thinking would fall in line with a humanistic worldview rather than a theistic worldview.
If it is determined that Scripture is the final authority, then logically all that is rightfully claimed to be Tradition must be consistent with and fall under the authority of the Scriptures. Of course, one might then ask, “How are the Scriptures to be interpreted? Is not Tradition needed to do this?” The correct answer is that while Tradition is to be considered in the overall interpretation of Scripture, it is Scripture itself that serves as its own final interpreter. In saying this, it is understood that humans and any expression flowing out of humanity (such as found in Tradition) are fallible and may render at best only a “faithful” interpretation. Any human interpretation, whether by a person, group or council cannot interpret anything “infallibly” where such an interpretation is final and can never be open to question. Only God is infallible. Because God is the Source of Scripture, one can conclude that His Word (Scripture) is also infallible. Because God is internally consistent, Scripture is also internally consistent and thereby, can interpret itself faithfully. Any rightful hermeneutic is based upon this premise.
Thus, the proper hermeneutic to approach the Scriptures would be a “theistic hermeneutic” rather than a “humanistic hermeneutic”. In other words, the Scriptures, being “breathed by God” (II Timothy 3:16), are internally consistent revealing Truth as Scripture interprets Scripture. In this, a historical-grammatical understanding which approaches the Scriptures more literally in its natural context is utilized. This averts more humanistic approaches such as those superimposing a humanly developed theological system onto the Scriptures or those implementing an allegorical, moral, or mystical method of interpretation originating out of the human mind from occurring. As has been noted, “A text out of context becomes a pretext to a proof text.” A theistic approach provides for a “natural” reading easily grasped by a generally educated populace as the Word of God is made more readily accessible to the people of God. It is important, therefore, that a particular “lens”, “filter” or “grid” not be forced upon the Scriptures (e.g. Anglican, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Dispensational, Reformed, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) whereby the Scriptures are twisted or tweaked to fit a particular persuasion. These “lens”, “filters” or “grids” only produce eisegesis leading to religious humanism resulting in division within the Church.
The following scenario is an example of a humanistic hermeneutic which has become fashionable in recent years. It incorporates the following:
1) Gather humanly acquired extra-biblical information assuming that this material is related
to a biblical account
2) Assume that this information is sufficiently accurate and complete
3) Assume that this information is necessary to correctly interpret the account
4) Project this information onto the biblical account
5) Assume that this extra-biblical information has influenced the writer and/or the situation
(context) of the account
6) Presume that a correct interpretation of the biblical account can now be attained because
of the utilization of this extra-biblical material
7) Presume that because of the use of this extra-biblical information, the biblical account
may, in fact, be isolated and/or localized, thus inferring that the account as having little or
no relationship to or bearing on other biblical accounts or material.
This humanistic approach is hugely problematic in that it is completely based upon an assumptive/presumptive rationale which demands that humanly acquired extra-biblical material as being necessary to properly understand a particular biblical account. Rather than first gaining a comprehensive understanding of a matter derived from a thorough study of the whole of Scripture while considering the record of historical interpretation and then discerning the pertinence of any extra-biblical data; this humanistic hermeneutic demands the incorporation of extra-biblical material relying upon baseless assumptions which may be quite fallacious in the interpretation of a matter. Even more so, such a hermeneutic may be used to completely localize biblical accounts to an extent as to make such accounts completely irrelevant to current application.
Practically speaking, the people of God are to be taught in the Scriptures in such a way as to interpret the Scriptures following a proper hermeneutic. When a matter particular to the Christian faith is discussed, representatives (commonly, elders) are chosen by God’s people to gather to determine the matter by a faithful interpretation of the Scriptures. A commonly held hermeneutic guides the elders in reaching a conclusion. As previously stated, while this conclusion is not infallible, it may be considered faithful in providing instruction and guidance for God’s people. While Tradition (such as found in commonly held early Creeds and respective of earlier Scriptural interpretations) may play an important role in determining a matter, even such aspects of Tradition, as important as they are, cannot be considered to be infallible as only the Scriptures are deemed infallible. Christians, therefore, can live out their faith in confidence while also being open to growing in understanding.
While the realization that no present tradition nor denomination nor movement can be touted as the “true” Church or contain the “full expression” of the Church, nevertheless, one should not fall into despair in that much can be learned from each expression. One can find great hope by looking beyond these expressions and seeking a way forward. This way forward must be grounded in a Theistic Worldview emphasizing God and His Revelation (His Word) as being sufficient as the final authority for the Christian faith and life along with a common hermeneutic in interpreting Scripture. After these matters are settled, the early Creeds of the Church (e.g. Apostle’s Creed. Nicaean Creed, Athanasian Creed, etc.) and the commonly held propositions found in Christian confessions and catechisms are brought into consideration. From this, a common kerygma can best be determined.
What is being suggested is a post-denominational mindset rather than a non-denominational mindset. A non-denominational mindset tends to cast a dim light on past attempts made by traditions, denominations and movements to find a purer expression of Christianity. A post-denominational mindset seeks to appreciate many of these past attempts while emphasizing that the time has now come to learn from these past expressions and move forward in the Christian faith becoming more of the Church that Christ envisioned. In this endeavor the question may be asked regarding how to protect the Church from heresy. While some may maintain that it is these past expressions with their various catechisms, confessions and hierarchical authority structures which are necessary to protect the Church, the historical problem is that many of these past measures of “protection” have all too often gone beyond the Scriptures in propagating their particular perspectives that continue to divide the Church. What is needed is a more concise statement that is less contentious and held within a structure that is more organic and less institutional. As previously mentioned, an example of such a statement might be similar to the one found in Appendix F.
A Portrayal of “Christ’s Church”
In recent years it has become apparent that God’s people are increasingly seeking authentic community in smaller, more family-type gatherings with a more proactive and consistent spiritual formation. Regretfully, the rise in individualism has left the Church with a focus on convenience and consumerism with superficial mass gatherings led by paid professionals often operating in a top-to-bottom hierarchy resulting in poor spiritual formation. A return to the more informal relating in a more bottom-to-top servant-leadership of the New Testament Church is needed. One practical question often asked is, “How can more organic gatherings of Christians take place?” Again, much of the organized church of today has a more or less “top-down” thinking of “church”. For the most part, this typically focuses on a formal mass gathering on a Sunday morning overseen by “paid professionals” propped up by more informal small group gatherings such as a Sunday school or meetings held during the week. Sound familiar? What if the church was depicted more as “bottom-up”? For example, what if small groups led by elders gathered in homes on most Sundays only meeting in a mass gathering format on the last Sunday of the month as a culmination of fellowshipping and worshipping more intimately throughout the month? Even such a small change as this would dramatically change the concept of “church” as we know it.
With the vacuum of mentoring in the lives of so many, an additional plus would be for older people to reinvest in teaching the younger people in the practical living out of the Christian life (Titus 2:1-10). As early as the second century CE until the present day, history records Christianity as becoming increasingly institutional, professional, and heterodox in synthesizing humanistic thinking and culture with biblical truth. However, in the 21st century, the tide may be turning. It must be remembered that the Church is fundamentally not institutional but is organic in nature. It is a family of God’s people based upon a genuine, authentic connection that is more naturally cultivated through time. These connections occur and flourish in relatively small groupings rather than in highly programmed mass gatherings. We mustn't lose sight of this basic understanding. So, what might the future of His Church look like?
An applicable example of uniting a community of those with varying expressions in professing Christ might be as follows: Imagine a township consisting of a thousand inhabitants. Within this township, there are five Christian churches, each claiming to represent a different tradition, denomination, or movement. Suppose that God began to raise up parishioners in each local assembly who became increasingly convinced that God, through His Spirit, was seeking to reclaim His universal Church in that township toward greater unity, peace, and purity. While not immediately abandoning their local church, these parishioners began to meet and discuss how this goal might be accomplished. All parishioners would be united in agreement that while each of their particular churches would have in varying degrees some measure of truthful insight to be contributed, no one church could claim to be the one true expression of the Christian faith. All these participants would hold to a Christian theistic worldview, agreeing that the Scriptures alone are sufficient as the basis of doctrine and would hold to a common hermeneutic in interpretation. Participants in this “ecumenical” group would consist of both leaders and non-leaders of their local churches; yet, agreeing that all would hold themselves to be “equals” to have a voice. A primary goal would be to take insights and ideas back to each local church to see if, and to what degree, change might occur in each congregation that would lead to increased unity among the churches. While it would be expected that this would be an ongoing process over some time, nevertheless, the hope would remain that all participants would be continually committed and invested in the process of glorifying God toward becoming the Bride of Christ pleasing in His sight.
One might ask, “Can the Church be one while still holding on to particular distinctions that may differ?” Yes, of course, as long as these distinctions can be understood and proclaimed as cultural and not doctrinal. As long as the kerygma of the Christian faith is understood as supra-cultural and timeless, cultural differences of expression will always be present as people live in ever-changing cultural environments. Some will choose to worship in venues of different architectural designs. Some venues may have pews or chairs, while others will not. Some people may dress one way while others may dress in another way. Music styles will vary. Liturgies or orders of worship may vary. And so on. The main point is while cultural expressions may vary, these cultural expressions are not to become dogma or be proclaimed obligatory for Christian life and worship. Once such cultural expressions become more than merely cultural expressions, then these expressions become matters depicting religion, not matters depicting revelation. It is important that cultural expressions – buildings, clothes, liturgies, music styles, etc. – not become the focus of what encompasses the Christian faith. If this should happen, these things may easily become idols. While perfection will never be found on this earth, I am convinced that much of the division in the Church that exists today can become significantly lessened. This begins with a “worldview realignment” and a more unified refocusing on the major doctrines solidly proclaimed in Scripture with less emphasis on issues of minor concern. Ideally, church shepherds will lead the way. If not, then it will come as no surprise if the sheep begin to take matters into their own hands.
Ultimately, by moving forward as has been described, the outcome would result in a body of believers representing the Christian Faith while leaving those who fail to adhere to these basic principles as those representing the Christian Religion. The great hope is that the people of God will truly seek the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, in establishing their identity and security in Christ and come to the understanding that the Christian Faith lies far beyond Antioch and Alexandria; beyond Rome and Constantinople; beyond Augsburg and Geneva; beyond Zurich and Canterbury; and beyond any earthly city from whence the many expressions and traditions holding to Christ have laid claim. We are called by God to find a way toward peace among ourselves rather than division (Psalm 34:14; Romans 12:18; 14:17,19; I Corinthians 14:33; II Corinthians 13:11; Galatians 5:22; I Thessalonians 5:13; Hebrews 12:4; James 3:17-18; I Peter 3:11; II Peter 3:14). This manifesto recognizes that all expressions in Christianity – whether found in a particular tradition, denomination or movement – have, for over the past two millennia and in varying degrees, been influenced by the humanistic world of Religion and Philosophy. While we may certainly find valuable aspects within each of our expressions that we may bring to the “peace table”, we must be extremely careful not to allow our expressions to cloud our minds and hearts to the point that we abandon the pursuit of Christian peace among ourselves. If this should happen, then our expression will then become an idol and a stumbling block in our lives and as a result, blind us from finding a way forward. Without question, this would only follow the designs of Satan in causing and maintaining division among God’s people. We would tragically be rendering judgment upon ourselves. It is time for God’s people to gain a fresh perspective to reclaim the Church from the bondage of our humanistic world so that Christ’s Bride can grow to become more at peace and in unity while striving to attain a greater degree of purity.
The question will arise, “By what name would such a body of believers who hold to the perspective proposed here be called?” Again, it is important to stress that this perspective does not suggest starting some new movement, denomination, or tradition. It is not advocating anything that would be depicted as some new fringe group or cultic following. While no label can perfectly contain all aspects of this perspective, it may be that this body of believers might simply refer to themselves as Christ’s Church. These believers, while temporarily remaining within a particular tradition, denomination, or movement; would, in fact, increasingly realize that their Faith transcends all these expressions. While labels may be helpful, the main issue is what is contained under such a label. Again, those of this perspective would hold to a Theistic Worldview emphasizing God and His Revelation (His Word) as being sufficient as the final authority for the Christian Faith as over to that of a Humanistic worldview emphasized within the Christian Religion. Those of Christ’s Church would support the Church as being organized and governed by elders as described in the New Testament serving within a conciliar framework. Finally, it is hoped that such a perspective would seek to reconcile, reclaim, and consolidate the Church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic body of believers.
As been stated, those who increasingly identify as being of the Christian Faith will initially find themselves simultaneously associating with both those of Christ’s Church as well as those of a particular expression (Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.). Over time, these particular expressions would become of lesser importance as one’s identity in Christ would become more solidified. Moreover, it is quite likely that these believers will increasingly abandon much of the theological and churchy “language” that has been utilized in the past, especially language that particular traditions, denominations, and movements have utilized such as parish, diocese, presbytery, synod, ordination, sacrament, liturgy, litany, ordinance, vestment, etc. For instance, in the English language instead of using words such as sacrament or ordinance, one might use the word “practice”; instead of parish, one might use “fellowship”, instead of ordination, one might use “appointment”, and so forth.
Furthermore, holding extreme positions regarding matters that the Bible does not clearly set forth will become less important. For example, regarding theological matters historically contentious, issues such as baptism or the Lord’s Supper; it may be that such believers will come to an agreement that no specific position is spelled out in the Scriptures other than the fact that Christians in the early Church regularly participated in the Lord’s Supper and that there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5 - recognising that God’s people are to be baptized). While properly “discerning the body” in the Lord’s Supper is important (I Corinthians 11:29), this “discerning” may include some measure of grace in that the body of our Lord will always contain a degree of “mystery” in the faith (I Timothy 3:9) ranging from that of a “remembrance” to a “real presence”. Even “baptism” may allow both “paedo” (infant) and “credo” (confessional) expressions. Some Christians may even conclude that since there is one Lord (Christ), one faith (in Christ), and one baptism (in Christ); the mode and timing of baptism may not be the most important matter of the Christian Faith. As there becomes increasing agreement in the understanding of one baptism (in Christ), the more common administration may be in both a “consecrational” administration of a believer’s child and a “confirmational” administration as one comes to confessional faith. While no doubt there may be those who might remain contentious over such matters, many Christians may finally say “enough” and move on increasingly finding common ground rather than remaining bogged down in such matters.
Regarding Church polity, God’s people may organize themselves into local fellowships in neighbourhoods, villages, townships, and cities further expanding into district fellowships, regional fellowships, national fellowships as well as even a global fellowship where the unity, peace, and purity of the faith are maintained. Moreover, it is quite plausible that local bodies may decide on an accountability structure that would be more local rather than being accountable to more distant entities. Even so, the primary understanding of the Church will be that of an organic rather than a highly institutionalized faith. In time, the concepts of “clergy” and “laity” will most likely become less common. Christians in general will become increasingly aware of the importance of all believers becoming better equipped in understanding the faith rather than leaving theological understanding to the “professional Christians”. With the growing access to information, more and more people will be able to become theologically self-educated and will become less dependent upon formal academic degrees as proof of their ability to serve the church. Leadership will become more “home-grown” as leaders will be those who have proven themselves over time to be worthy in character, knowledge, wisdom, and experience among the people (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). No doubt, some elders may find themselves more intensely involved in their duties than other elders and will need to be relieved of outside vocational responsibilities to better meet the needs of the congregation, thus requiring financial support (I Timothy 5:17-18). Again, this would not be the implementation of a separate clergy class but rather a recognition of those gifted and able to serve in a more focused capacity when conditions allow.
In time, God’s people may come to move beyond today’s common forms of church polity such as episcopalism, presbyterianism or congregationalism and return to see the Church stemming from the biological/spiritual family of times past. From early history, it was biological families and those associated with these families that comprised human and spiritual communities. This was also typical of early Christianity. A return to this model would not only provide a more organic, intimate, and spiritually vibrant faith community, but would also return the extended family as the social building block of the Church as well as society at large. Elders representing each family-based community would form a conciliar network for governance and accountability for the entire Church.
As stated throughout this manifesto, the way forward would first recognize that both Philosophy and Religion are Satan’s counterfeit stemming from a Humanistic worldview that is not only enticing but captivating and even addictive. Again, while this may sound quite naïve and narrow, this understanding is essential. As stated before, those of Christ’s Church would not strongly self-identify as being of a movement, denomination or tradition but would be believers who have come to a perspective that the Church is primarily not found in any one institutional formulation but comprises the organic family of God’s chosen people. Without question, our present understanding of who we are stems from that which our histories have made us. We cannot change our past. However, who we become will be subject to the future choices that we make. While the Christian may find some temporal association among believers of a particular organizational body, such a one intuitively knows that their basic identity is in Christ which is paramount and beyond these associations.
As in any shift of a group in moving from a limited position of “tunnel vision” to becoming able to see beyond and grasp a more promising perspective, groups normally pass through phases in their thinking. Often, this is the same process for Christian traditions, denominations, or movements. Initially, they may begin with 1) Believing their group as the only “legitimate” group and any person who is not part of their group as not being truly Christian. Then, they may come to see that 2) While they may still hold their group as the only legitimate group, there becomes increasing recognition that there are legitimate Christians who are in association with “illegitimate” groups but are counted as “wandering or lost sheep in need of returning to the fold” (i.e. returning to their particular “legitimate” group). Next, the group may come to the point of making a daring move to 3) Actually seeing that there are, indeed, other legitimate groups; however, still holding fast to their group as the “most legitimate”. As they are able to move beyond the tunnel, finally they are then 4) Able to see other groups as actually legitimate each having their own positive and negative aspects. Interaction between these groups and between individual Christians can become more trusting and intimate as they count one another as “equals” in working through their differences. Finally, trust is sufficiently developed to the point that they can 5) Proceed in finding increasing doctrinal purity, peace, and unity while recognizing that uniformity in cultural expression may not have to be necessary to allow for such differences.
As our Lord matures His Church in the coming years, Christians will no doubt become more able to move beyond a worldly “Institutional” understanding to a more “Organic” understanding of the Body of Christ in seeing the Church as truly a Family with a small “i” in being institutionally organized and accountable. Christians can then discover increasing freedom from the past “Institutional” notion of what it means to follow Christ in finding their identity and security in a Person rather than in a System. Within the Christian Family, there is intimacy and trust where the terms of brother and sister, father and mother, as well as uncle and aunt have real meaning. These kinds of relationships are better fostered in smaller groupings as their main relational core. This does not mean that mass gatherings from time to time cannot be beneficial as all the family can be encouraged to observe numerical growth. However, common sense reminds us that people can only maintain a limited number of meaningful relationships. It is interesting to note that some social scientists, such as Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford University, has concluded that the human brain can only handle around 150 people in their social sphere.11 Utilizing mass meetings as the common means of relating as a Church will only weaken both Family and Faith. The Church cannot afford to drift into a shallow and superficial existence if she is to confront an increasingly godless world. May we learn from history and arise to gird our loins to stand more solidly strong and not remain to wallow in the present morass of apathy and division. We must always keep Christ’s severe warning before us that neither a house nor a kingdom divided against itself can stand (Matthew 12:25; Mark 3:24-25).
Meanwhile at the Millennial Pub
Some may wonder what the early Apostles would think if they walked the streets in today’s post-Christian society. Without a doubt, amazement would fill their minds. One can just imagine the Apostles strolling into what might be called the Millennial Pub. The Pub would primarily be filled with non-believers sitting at the bar ordering drink after drink, soaking in the loud music and hanging about with their contemporaries in the main gathering area of the Pub. However, in various corners would be the “cool Christians” with their like-minded theologically astute buddies. In one corner would be the “Young, Restless & Reformed” bunch; in an opposing corner would be the “Completely Confirmed Catholic”; while in another select corner would be the “Thoroughly Original Orthodox”. Yes, characteristically there would be a sprinkling of others; the “ever lively Pente-Charismatics”, the “staunchly cautious Baptists”, the “socially minded Methodists”, the “posh Anglicans”, among many others. Each would have their particular axe to grind staring down one another waiting for a theological “brawl” to break out – where everyone enjoys a good fight at the local Pub.
In the meantime, the pagans among them would keep scratching their heads thinking to themselves what a bunch of “losers” these Christians are, who seemingly cannot get their act together. “Why can’t they just get over themselves and maybe make a real difference”; each side filled with pride and smugness, remaining oblivious to what is happening. Of course, what everyone at the Pub does not realize is that Satan is the bartender who keeps pouring the drinks with glee, secretly relishing in his clueless clientele. If these Christians would only spend as much time and energy seeking the Truth which is beyond their traditions, denominations, or movements rather than simply holding on for dear life defending these expressions, could the Church find a more promising way forward. Regrettably, too many Christians are continually deceived into placing their hope and security in the wrong places rather than in God alone. When doing so, their particular perspective or expression becomes an idol.
The Apostles would quietly make their way over to a few tacky scattered chairs at the back where the “nobodies” huddle. Yes, these would indeed be the cheap seats. What crosses their minds is anyone’s guess. Maybe they are saddened by the whole scene. Maybe they are angry. Maybe they are thinking that they should at least stand up and say something. But maybe they should leave it to these “Christian types” to learn to grow up and take their fight outside and seek to find real unity, peace and purity for the glory of Christ. Or maybe the Apostles might even wonder why God does not just build another Ark and make do with the whole lot! (Ah, yes, that rainbow promise thing. OK. Not an option.). After an hour or so the Apostles would pay up and leave the establishment. As they fade into the darkness, one could hear a faint voice among them uttering a prayer ending with “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20). Indeed.
A Final Warning
When reflecting on the words of Jesus, some passages of Scripture have without question left many of us a bit unnerved. One such passage is found in Matthew 7:21-23 when Jesus proclaims that not everyone who seemingly does religious acts in Jesus’ name as being of Him. However, Jesus declares, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” Likewise, there is the passage referring to Jesus cursing a fig tree (Matthew 21: 18-22; Mark 11:12-14; 20-25) where Jesus compares what had become the empty religious rituals of Judaism as that which is not representative of the true faith.
Such passages should continue to be a reminder to all who consider themselves as being “religious” Christians; that they may be deceiving themselves regarding the true Christian faith. The apostle Paul reminds us that we need to examine ourselves to see whether we are truly of the faith (II Corinthians 13:5). It is to be remembered that it is not merely the outward appearance of things that are of chief concern, it is what lies in the heart of a person that is important to God (I Samuel 16:6-7; II Corinthians 5:11-12). Again, how one views the credibility and sufficiency of God’s Word is paramount. Those who tend to view the Scriptures as neither being reliable nor credible often tend to drift toward liberalism while those who tend to view the Scriptures as not being fully sufficient as the basis for Christian faith and life tend to drift toward legalism. Both tendencies have historically led the Church into varying influences of humanism which have evolved into the particular traditions, denominations and movements that we are faced with today.
Throughout history, “religionists” have continually plagued God’s people, both before and after the Advent of Christ. It is the religionist who establishes doctrines and practices in the name of their religious institution, claiming these to be as authoritative as the very Word of God. It is no wonder that increasing numbers of Christians suspiciously hold the established institutional Church at a distance in that most denominations, traditions and movements are seen as far more interested in the preservation and perpetuation of their expression than in moving forward in the hope of unifying God’s people. However, once the tide begins to turn against what has become a highly institutional, professional, and heterodox expression of Christianity as presently being depicted as merely a religion among many other religions, a remnant of God’s people will emerge seeking to return the Christian Faith to its roots. After so many centuries of decay, it may be likely that it will take a transition period of at least three to five generations for a solid body of those holding to the Christian Faith to become distinguished from those of the Christian Religion as being normative in society. As this development proceeds, it will increasingly be more apparent that it is the Christian Religion that divides the Church while it is the Christian Faith that unites the Church.
Even so, our Lord is calling His people to unity, peace, and purity in the one true faith that He has so graciously revealed to us. Failing to take this matter seriously by just continuing to propagate our particular expression at the expense of all else is more than a minor oversight but is an act of direct disobedience to His call on our lives. May we not simply ignore or walk away from this call as being unimportant or inconvenient. The future of the spiritual health of His people is at stake as well as the witness of His Church before the world. If we truly love our Lord as we say that we do, we need to act by His revealed will without delay (John 14:15, 21;15:10).
It is important to understand that the Faith of God’s people began in the Garden of Eden and continues to this present day. It is not something that is derived from human culture nor is it a product of human thought, such as philosophy or religion. The Faith of God’s people is grounded in God alone and is revealed supernaturally from God Himself. Its essence is not merely found in an experience or to be expressed through some ritualistic activity. It is more than a set of beliefs or doctrines to be argued or to be settled through an apologetic exercise. The Faith of God’s people is Reality itself. It is the very air that is breathed by the believer. One must literally be “born again” into this new Reality (John 3:3, 7; I Peter 1:3, 23) and become a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).
It must always be remembered that from the very beginning, God spoke – He communicates and divinely reveals Himself, “In the beginning, God … and God said” (Genesis 1:1-3). “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1). He is the Logos. Since the beginning God revealed Himself propositionally and ultimately in human flesh. This is why divine revelation (the Scriptures and Christ) is fundamental to the Faith and to which any human idea and even natural revelation are subject. To shift this Faith from the foundation of theism to that of humanism is a serious matter that changes the very substance from whence this Faith is derived. Tragically, through the years as the Church has increasingly succumbed to the deception of humanism, God’s people have been fed the counterfeit of religion.
Comments