Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 6

Well, this next post isn't quite coming together as I'd hoped it would. Usually, I've found that means that I'm trying to bite off too big a chunk to chew over in a single blog post. And in the background, in the real life that keeps calling to me, important stuff is going to be happening that may mean a week-and-a-half break from my blog. My wife, family and friends are very much the higher priority. So I'm going to post what I've written so far of the next in this series of posts, leaving off with hints of what I'll be returning to in a couple of weeks. I may find time to post to my blog during that time, but I don't think I'll post on this topic, as I anticipate that the next couple of posts will require a bit of Bible research and fairly careful writing.

Much of my previous 5 posts about the essentials of the Christian faith have been organized around and about Fundamentalism and the core teachings of historic Fundamentalism. Am I, then, a Fundamentalist? If it isn't obvious from previous posts, I agree that Fundamentalism's key teachings are at the core of the Christian faith. And I am in agreement concerning those teachings. But there are finer points – from my point of view, of course – of teaching and practice in which I differ from most Fundamentalists, and which would make me a less than excellent fit in a Fundamentalist church. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and most would recognize me as such as well.

My previous two posts covered the items in the two lists of Fundamentalism's fundamentals. As I said previously, those lists were one of two reference points around which I'd be organizing this series of blog posts. The point has come where I will begin to use that other reference point, Hebrews 6:1-2.

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (ESV)

Most of the teachings listed in this passage have already been touched on: repentance; faith in God; the resurrection of the dead; eternal judgment. But what's this about “washings” and “the laying on of hands”? What is referred to as “washings”? And who thinks of “the laying on of hands” as a basic Christian teaching? If at all?

Some have tried to take these verses to refer to things of the old covenant, which Christian believers should leave behind. It may be that these two items are what leads them to that view. But that isn't the meaning of the text. The ESV, quoted above, and the NAS, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity …", faithfully capture the meaning of the Greek text of Hebrews. These things are basic Christian teachings - “doctrine of Christ”, “teaching about the Christ”. These are teachings, not to be left behind, as if abandoned, but to be left as a builder “leaves” the foundation to build the rest of the house.

So, I'm leaving off at this point, letting my readers, if any, to think about what “washings” and “the laying on of hands” might mean. I can't resist it … I'll drop a couple of hints. Find out what the Greek word is that the ESV and NAS translate as “washings”. And use a concordance or online search site to find New Testament references to people laying on hands in Christian ministry.

Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 5

Both summaries of Fundamentalism's Fundamentals – from Wikipedia and from Answers.com, posted in Part 3 – focus on the person and work of Jesus. Keep in mind that these are but other people's summaries of what has recently been re-published as 4 large books! I'm not questioning the summaries' correctness, just pointing out their brevity in comparison to the original.

So what do the lists of Fundamentals say about Jesus?

• Prior to being born as a human, Jesus was God.

• Jesus' conception and birth were miraculous (Mary was a virgin).

• During His ministry, Jesus did miraculous things.

• Jesus' death atoned for sin.

• Jesus was resurrected, bodily, from the dead.

• Jesus will return again.

How do these square with Scripture passages – quoted in parts 2 and 3 – that identify essential and foundational teachings? The following, I think, speak to this question:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6, ESV)

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2, ESV)

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4, ESV)

While not as specific and focused as the Fundamentals listed above, these passages agree that the man, Jesus, was unique. What truthful, sane, human being could make the claim Jesus did? Why would “another Jesus” matter, unless Jesus were unique? That Jesus was born of Mary when she was yet a virgin is attested to by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. That Jesus is God is variously stated and shown throughout the four Gospels and in other New testament books. Both what Jesus said and the passage from Hebrews speak to salvation from sin coming uniquely through what Jesus did (another passage about this shortly).

What about Jesus' bodily resurrection and second coming? Well, the passage from Hebrews alludes to both, but at this point I need to introduce yet another passage that points to essential Christian beliefs, 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. Does this series of blog posts seem to be getting a bit shaggy? Well, it's “my” blog, of which I am in nominal marginal control, and yes, sometimes my memory is more than a bit shaggy. I'm not going to post the entire 15th Chapter of 1 Corinthians – it's one of the longer chapters in the New Testament. While the entire chapter is well worth reading, but I'm only going to quote several relevant passages.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, ESV)

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:12-14, ESV)

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:16-20, ESV)

In these passages, Paul states quite emphatically, “as of first importance,” that Jesus rose from the dead and why this fact is important. Much of the rest of the chapter speaks of Jesus' return and what will happen with believers when He does.

Jesus, Who He is, everything He did, everything He will yet do is at the very core of the Christian faith. If Jesus was just a nice inspirational man, if Jesus' death was just another of many individual personal tragedies of injustice, if Jesus' remains are yet in the grave, if everything Jesus did was complete some 2000 years ago, THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN FAITH. It's a pathetic hoax! Christian believers are ridiculous dupes. As Paul said in verse 32 of this chapter, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”!

But Jesus is God Who became man. Jesus' death gives believers forgiveness and eternal life. Jesus sealed our salvation with His resurrection and guaranteed our resurrection to eternal life at His return! This core of the Christian faith is the basis for Christian fellowship: it transcends denominations; it transcends economic differences; it transcends nationality and race. With “another Jesus” – the inspirational but tragic “Jesus”, the trickster “Jesus”, the figment of imagination “Jesus” – there is no basis for fellowship.

Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 4

Just to clarify … I don't think anyone would suggest that the lists of Fundamentalism's fundamentals, in Part 2, are in some way authoritative, nor encyclopedic of Christian teaching. The lists are, however, historically interesting and a reasonable reference point for thought. Another such reference point I will be using will be the passage quoted in Part 2 from Hebrews 6.

Common to both lists is the unique inspiration and authority of Scripture. This, of course, derives from what Scripture says of itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17), primarily, and secondarily from church history. Without Scripture – all of Scripture, not just what suits my fancy (which then would make me the source of authority) – Christianity could be whatever each and every person chooses to say it is (“I think Christianity is a ham-on-rye sandwich. Prove me wrong!”). If Christianity is anything and everything anybody and everybody says it is, it is reduced to meaningless nothingness. Scripture, then is the measuring device, the level, the plumb line – the standard for and source of Christian teaching. Scripture, and acceptance thereof, is a boundary defining what is and isn't Christian teaching.

What does this mean in practical terms for Christian fellowship? Well, as I posted previously, I have neither the authority nor the knowledge to say whether or not a person is truly a Christian believer. So, in principle, it is possible for some one to be unaware of or not accept the full authority of the Bible and yet be a Christian believer. That said, realistically, a person who rejects the full authority of the Bible and approaches it like a buffet table – picking what they like while leaving the rest – is unlikely to “like”, to accept, the message that they are a sinner and in need of a Savior. And such a person is also likely to find unpalatable much that the Bible (including the teachings of Jesus) identify as morally right or wrong. So the basis for fellowship with such persons is will, at best, be tenuous (thus, automatic rejection would be wrong), and very possibly non-existent. A person unaware of the authority of Scripture and says they are a Christian believer will, in a fellowship or service situation, soon be faced with choices about the authority of Scripture. Scripture challenges every person by providing an honest view of what that person is. And the bases for Christian fellowship will come out of those choices – whether acceptance, rejection or compromise.

Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 3

This next part seems like it is resisting being written! It's tempting to blame spiritual opposition, but owning up to my own limitations is simpler and more realistic. After “sleeping on it", I realized that there is some foundational material I was going to mix into discussion of particulars that would more simple and more clear if I wrote about it up front.

One thing is to recognize that there is a lot of ground between full acceptance and clear rejection of an idea. Sometimes people simply haven't heard that idea. A new believer or one who hasn't received a lot of Christian teaching might be in such a position. Or a person might be in the position of having heard of an idea, but not enough to have a satisfactory understanding, and therefore not have committed for or against the idea and the implications thereof.

Then there's boundaries? Boundaries of/to what? To salvation? Ultimately, I cannot have the knowledge to say with certainty, “No, ______ is not saved.” God has that knowledge of the human heart, I do not. On the other hand, there are some real things, ideas rejected or ideas embraced that a Christian believer can see in another person that point toward a person probably being lost or probably being saved. How about fellowship? Again, a simple, “Yes,” or, “No,” doesn't work. One may not know or understand a certain Christian teaching – even a fundamental teaching – and still be a believer with whom I might or should share fellowship or minister in some areas. “Fellowship” means to share things in common; “ministry” means service. Two Christian believers of very different background – e.g. a Catholic and a Pentecostal – have their faith in Jesus and the Great Commission (to bring others to faith in Christ) in common. There's a lot of room for fellowship and service together with “just” those things in common! That fellowship and ministry will, however, very likely lead to areas of difference being discussed. Having recognized each other as fellow believers, having shared fellowship, having served side by side, such discussions will very likely be of a different tone than a similar discussion between two strangers who know little of each other. And such discussions between two believers who have shared fellowship and have served side by side are more likely to improve both believers' understanding of the Christian faith. On the other hand, there are practical boundaries or limitations in such fellowship or service that can result from differences in understanding of Christian teaching. Recognizing and respecting those limitations should not mean avoiding certain other believers entirely, however!

In Part 2, I suggested that I might recall further Scripture passages that point to essential or boundary teachings. One such Scripture occurred to me last night:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, ESV)

Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 2

“Fundamentalist” is a much abused word these days. It doesn't really have any fixed or certain meaning, except to identify some religious group or belief system of which some one disapproves. However, unlike “Christian”, the term Fundamentalist did not start as an outsiders' mocking term or epithet. “Fundamentalist” was coined a little over a century ago by persons of that persuasion to describe what they stood. The term came from a series of 12 booklets titled “The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth”. “Fundamentalist” referred to the fact that they viewed certain Christian teachings as non-negotiable fundamentals. While Wikipedia's article on “Fundamentalism”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism, embraces the equivocation of the meaning of the term, it identifies the fundamentals as:

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.

• The virgin birth of Christ.

• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.

• The bodily resurrection of Christ.

• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamentalism, identifies the fundamentals as:

• The virgin birth of Christ

• Jesus' deity and substitutionary atonement for sin

• Christ's bodily resurrection

• His literal second coming

• The authority and inerrancy of the Bible

One fundamental both lists have in common points to scripture as the authority for Christians. So it's reasonable to ask, does scripture speak of things that are fundamental or essential to the Christian faith? In a previous post about this topic, http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-thoughts-on-christian-unity-from.html, I pointed to two scriptures as identifying certain essentials.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6, ESV)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6, ESV)

The latter verse is probably quite familiar to most Christian believers. Two others come to mind, which are relevant to this consideration.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV)

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2, ESV)

Those verses from 2 Timothy are also probably quite familiar to most Christian believers, but the Hebrews 6 passage possibly much less so. And in answer to the question I asked above, these verses do point to certain essentials or foundational (fundamental) Christian teachings. These passages will be the starting points for further posts on this topic (though I may add other passages that might come to mind, of course).

Christian Unity and Boundaries in Christian Fellowship, Part 1

I haven't written anything for nearly a week, and part of it is that something has been on my mind, but I've been trying to wrap my head around how to express and organize my thoughts. There are two polar extremes among Christians - believers and the nominal - that I think are problematic.

The first is a broad category of excessive exclusion. Some are hard and fast - they really think they're the only ones going to heaven. This isn't just groups like Jehovah's witnesses (who I believe really are not Christians, despite believing that they are). There are folks who I think really are Christian believers, but who think people outside of their group are not. A little softer are folks who think they are somehow elite among believers. These can range from those among Pentecostals and charismatics who think they have some kind of corner on the gifts of the Holy Spirit (been there, heard that, did not buy the T-shirt) to Catholics who believe the Catholic Church is THE church. Then there's what I call heresy hunters, who nominally accept there are believers outside of their particular persuasion, but in practice will nitpick any pretext to preclude fellowship or ministry with outside folk.

On the opposite extreme are those who are willing to accept anyone as a Christian - or every religion as equally valid - regardless of what they believe. Unless god is something every person creates in their chosen image - and what kind of god is that? - there are fundamental contradictions among Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and others. Reasonably, one could be true or none could be true, but the contradictions among them are too fundamental for all to be true. How can god be, simultaneously, one, many, and non-existent?

There are details of Christian teaching over which Christian believers disagree. There's no denying that obvious fact. But, what are the foundational things which unite Christian believers, but are boundaries that differentiate Christian believers from others (named or unnamed)? Well that's coming in further posts.

You Can Pay Me Now, or ...

Nearly 5 decades into the "Sexual Revolution", and nearly 4 decades post Roe vs. Wade, those glorious events have had pretty much every horrible effect on society that nay-saying, repressed, reactionary, theologically conservative Christians predicted, and a bit more. So, is this blog post going to be an, "I told you so," rant? Nah! What's the point of that?

It is time, in my opinion, for church and Christians in the US to recognize where society is at and where it is heading. Reversing that horrific decline is a worthwhile goal, but success in that is uncertain at best. Meanwhile, it is high time for the church and Christians to learn to deal with people as they are, bruised and battered by the marvels of modern society's victimless whatchamacallits. Jesus, Paul and the other New Testament writers spent little time lamenting the state of Roman society, and that truly was awful! They devoted their energies to reaching out to, bringing to redemption and the transforming of the people around them.

Modern Christians in the US have input and influence into how American society develops or devolves, something the early church did not have. Speaking to American society is worthwhile, but the redemption and transformation of individual people in society is paramount. We need to be prepared to work with those who chose "Later" in the, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later," equation. Jesus came to fix broken people who know they are broken, not people who imagine themselves unbroken. They will come for repair, but are the church and Christian people ready to help society's broken people?