Since we're talking about cooperation...
I welcome your response to the following:
Cooperation under the Old Covenant
- Israel was to be separate from foriegn nations
- False prophets were railed upon...not cooperated with...even those who were prophesying in the name of Yahweh.
Cooperation under the New Covenant:
- Perhaps Jesus' strongest rebukes were directed at the religious leaders of the day who refused to believe in Him as the way, the truth and the life.
- Instead of joining up with the religious establishment in order to go mainstream...Jesus went counter to the entire, corrupt lot of them.
- Paul called Judaizers dogs. (people who were teaching that one had to adhere to certain Old Covenant laws in order to be saved)
- Paul said to come out and be separate from unbelievers...and certainly he meant more than just unequal yoking in marriage
- Paul railed against those who added works to grace as a prerequisite for salvation
- Paul railed against those who added or distorted scripture
- Peter and Jude railed against false teachers who were misusing the grace of God
So what of us? For the sake of cooperation and unity and community involvement and evangelism...should we go against the flow of the pattern of the godly leaders in scripture, including Jesus, and join up with those institutions, denominations, etc...who name the name of Jesus but are teaching error on one or more essential doctrines?
What are the lines of ecclesiastical separation? Are there any?
Should an evangelical, bible believing church that believes rightly on the essentials of the faith link up with say a Catholic or Lutheran church, for instance, for evangelistic purposes...even though both institutions teach justification by baptism?
What are the lines of ecclesiastical separation? Again...are there any?
What about those institutions that are radically Charismatic...teaching health and wealth and a prayer hanky for the right price? Should we join with them for kingdom purposes? Just asking.
What are the lines of ecclesiastical separation? Are there any?
I grew up in a fundamentalist, independant Baptist church. Gosh, they separated from other churches for good things....and a lot of really stupid things. Some of the more stupid reasons are as follows:
- Appearance - if a church didn't teach short hair for men, long dresses for women...it was a church to avoid at all costs
- Style - if a church didn't limit it's music style to hymns and classical music...it was a church that was definately liberal and needed to be avoided
- Non-essential doctrines - mode of baptism; what one believed about sign gifts (healing, tongues, etc.); eschatology...and the list goes on.
I'm not talking about stupid separation...that's worn as a prideful badge of honor. I'm referring to what seems to be a clearly biblical concept.
So I ask one more time: What are the lines of ecclesiastical separation? Are there any?
posted by James Hunt at
11:15 PM
8 Comments:
If a church doesn't have the following on it's sign, avoid it and pray for the souls of it's members:
Independent, Fundamental, KJV 1611
That's on the sign of a decent sized church not too far from my home. I wonder where they stand? ...
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that the more doctrinal agreement you have, the more cooperation there can be. In the ministerial alliance of which I am a member, all of it's members, including the local Catholic priest, work together in meeting the physical needs that are presented to us. Beyond that, there is not enough we all hold in common to do much more. A pastor of the local Church of Christ attended some meetings several years back and was threatened by his congregation with dismissal if he continued. We have a community service, but I'm not terribly comfortable with the format. It rotates between only two churches due to space considerations, and the preaching is done alternately by all members of the alliance. In the town I came from, community services rotated among all churches in the community and the host pastor preached. I feel much more comfortable with that arrangement.
Your final question was about ecclesiastical separation. In a strict sense, don't we practice ecclesiastical separation every Sunday when we worship with those with whom we most agree doctrinally? I know that's not really the sense of your question, but I thought it was a brilliant insight on my part.
Must be the hat...
By
Wes Kenney, at 8:56 PM
Hey James...
You know, we used to attend a church in San Antonio that was a "community" church. Their stance was that you had to agree on cardinal issues (and they laid those out there) but that there was freedom on secondary issues (which were not listed, but you figured that was anything that was in the bible, but not on the cardinal list...:-))
It seemed to work OK...there were those who believed in tongues and those who didn't, those who gave weight to prophesy and those who didn't...none of that happened in our services, but there were cell groups that practiced some of those things (or so I hear :-))
We attended (and were members) there for about 2 years. It was a really artsy church and fun...the pastor was kind of a drama type and did a "drama" instead of a sermon once a month...we found that very entertaining...but then we noticed that he was taking liberties with the stories (he would appear as a Bible character). At one point, we confronted him privately (and gently...really:-)), and he told us he was taking "artistic license" EEEEEK!
So we left that church and went to a more mainline church.
So here is my question...if you hear a sermon and it appears to be in error, and you bring it to the speaker, and they can't seem to (or don't feel it is important to) come to a meeting of the minds with you, biblically, how far do you take it...I mean if it is not a salvation issue?
By
angela, at 12:46 PM
Wes,
You're hilarious. "Independent, Fundamental, KJV 1611"
I think I would have the same reservations about being in the group you're describing.
Ecclesiastical separation every Sunday? Good point...and, you're right, not exactly what I'm getting at.
I guess I just have a really big problem working in cooperation with those insitutions that call themselves churches of Jesus that don't hold to the solas of the Reformation.
Angela,
Good choice on leaving that church. That seems to have been a wise move.
There are issues that one might disagree upon yet still have cooperation. There are many churches that teach the historic fundamentals of the faith yet have differences of understanding on non-essential issues.
By
James Hunt, at 7:54 PM
Yeah, I don't think our local Catholic priest, good man that he is, is a big fan of Luther...
By
Wes Kenney, at 5:55 AM
By the way, have you been in jail or something?
I thought you had dropped off the earth...
Glad you're back.
By
Wes Kenney, at 8:42 AM
Wes,
Sorry...fairly irresponsible of me. DUI.
Okay, not really...just busy (lazy).
As for your local Catholic priest...I wonder if he'd like to chat about the sola's of the Reformation.
By
James Hunt, at 7:20 PM
Probably, but he'd want to do it in Latin. I don't think he's big on Vatican II.
By
Wes Kenney, at 7:47 PM
Well then, maybe I do have something in common with him. Not a fan of Vatican II...of course, I'm not a fan of the Vatican.
I'd be more impressed if the RCC had a Vatican III and declared that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone plus and minus nothing...and if they renounced the killing of the faithful in the Inquisition...and declared that the traditions of the church fathers aren't on an equal plane with Scripture and that Mary is definately not a co-redeemer with Christ or one to be worshiped.
At least that'd be a start.
By
James Hunt, at 8:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home