An Invitation to Balance

I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, Methodist, Catholic or Baptist (although I honor and cherish my Baptist background); nor am I an advocate for any of the above. I recognize that each has made positive contributions and had negative impact on human history, and I respect the right of anyone to adhere to any of them.

This writing will not argue the relative merits or weaknesses of any of the above. While I am more than willing to share my own faith perspectives with any who want to hear, I have no desire—indeed, I have no right—to inflict my perspectives on anyone who does not wish to listen.[1]

I advocate open sharing between all the above, in order to generate greater mutual understanding and appreciation, because there is much common ground among all us—common ground upon which to build a more peaceful, cooperative and enriched humanity.

But I face a wall. I've lived on the other side of the wall, so I think I understand and empathize with those who are there, and I have no wish to insist that they conform to my perspective before we proceed.

Here’s the wall: there are those who, because of their utterly sincere faith and commitment do insist that all humanity accept their confession of faith before we proceed. Nor does their faith and commitment encourage them to collaborate with those who are not under their roof.

I understand that. As I say, I’ve held the same passion as they; a passionate belief that they hold the exclusive, ultimate truth of God—which is the only path to God and to eternal salvation—and that they are responsible for proclaiming that truth until all of humanity has accepted it and has made the same affirmations they have made.

I honor that sense of commitment, nor would I ask them to cease and desist in their efforts (although I would wish them to honor the rights of those who feel violated by some of their strategies. Indeed, I find some of their strategies counterproductive to the Gospel. That’s another debate I’m willing to pursue, but in a different venue.)

Jim Wallis[2] recalls a public forum in which he debated a close friend and colleague, Southern Baptist seminary president, Dr. Albert Mohler. The topic was, “Is social justice an essential part of the gospel and the mission of the church?”[3]

Wallis argued yes, justice is integral to the gospel. Dr. Mohler said no, arguing that social justice was important but that “the gospel” was the atonement brought about in Christ that saves us from our sins and secures our souls for heaven. Wallis reports:

“It was a very civil and respectful conversation because Al and I know each other and because both of us wanted to demonstrate a kind of discourse different from what now prevails in our culture and politics. But we did disagree, and our disagreement is at the heart of very different visions today for the future of the church” (emphasis mine).

First of all, I find it refreshing and encouraging when disagreeing Christians debate with civility and respect, and remain close friends.

In this writing, let’s affirm Dr. Mohler’s stance that biblical imperatives for justice are important, but only an implication of the gospel. In practice, I have rarely seen evangelicals acknowledge social justice as important at all.

In fairness, I confess that, except for a few congregations and isolated judicatory examples, my own denomination is seriously lacking in effective evangelistic theory and practice. Actually, many of our constituents reject evangelism as valid (although, I have the sense that by evangelism they mean those counterproductive strategies to which I refer earlier).

So, here’s my question: can we overlap? Is it possible for evangelical and mainline Christians to work together on both evangelism and social justice without anyone compromising a priority?

I understand that we don’t even agree on terminology (e.g., I and most mainline Protestants don’t buy “substitutionary” atonement.) 

But, bottom line, whether atonement/justification/salvation is substitutionary or exemplary or sacramental or reconciliatory or universal, the overwhelming majority of Christians will agree that Jesus is the medium through which God extended (or at least demonstrated) that salvation, and that such extension/demonstration was an expression of pure grace.

Never mind that we won’t even agree totally on what grace is (e.g., virtually all will say it is “unmerited favor;” that it can’t be earned. But some will place prerequisites upon the reception of grace, while others will say it is given gratuitously.)

Never mind that we will never agree on all of the faith. Can we at least start to work together, just so the world can witness what a united Body of Christ looks like?

Gandhi is reported to have said, “I love your Jesus. It’s Christians that give me problems.” 

A sizeable portion of the generation called “Millennials” would agree, and are leaving the church en mass. Thomas G, Bandy calls them the fastest growing spiritual population in North America: the "spiritually yearning, institutionally disillusioned public."

Can we begin to remove that roadblock to the Gospel?

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] I do not limit this discussion to the groups named above; indeed, should I try to be all-inclusive, it would be an exercise in futility. Suffice it to say that the above constitutes a representative sampling of the human diversity that I believe enriches humanity.

[2] Wallis is a self-proclaimed evangelical; although, his social activism has resulted in his being pushed, at best, to the periphery of evangelical circles. Indeed, many evangelicals reject him as a valid Christian voice.

[3] Wallis, Jim (2013-08-15). Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters (Ebook Shorts) (Kindle Locations 192-213). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #7

The Blessedness of Unity

Psalm 133:1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters live together in unity!

Unfortunately, churches all around the world experience brokenness. Christians are divided over things as petty as the style and time of worship services. We have said that unity is crucial, because it is the Secret of God’s Will. Nothing is more important to God than the unity of Christ’s Body. Unity also is crucial to any organization for the achieving its purpose. So how is it possible to live in unity when disagreements arise?

Most of my readers know that I am an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Our founders, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were fond of quoting St. Augustine: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.”

So, what is essential, and what is non-essential? That’s the question about which Christians have been unable to agree since the day the Church was born.

Some say evangelism is the most essential element in the Christian community. Others suggest that following Jesus in meeting human needs must take priority. Some insist that one’s ultimate relationship with God comes only by way of a specifically worded affirmation of faith, while others contend that we are known by our fruits.

Some put forward issues such as abortion and gay rights as “deal breakers” and still others counter with their focus on grace and forgiveness and being non-judgmental. And all of the above use and abuse scripture to rationalize their positions.

In a perfect world, we would sit down together and prayerfully and lovingly collaborate to discern God’s will in a given situation. Sometimes we just have to reach a consensus and walk by faith—test out the consensus to see if it edifies or tears down.

But, it isn’t a perfect world; nor are we perfect creatures. As long as there is freedom of thought, there will be differences of opinion; and as long as we humans are incomplete (a fundamental definition of sin), we will not always be able to discern the difference between “opinion” and the “truth.” We can’t even agree on the understandings of specific verses of scripture.

The fundamental beliefs of the faith, those tenets generally shared by virtually every Christian, are not negotiable. But if the dispute has to do with a nonessential issue—even certain interpretations of doctrine, (i.e., free will versus predestination)—some prayerful discussion in love is acceptable, but believers should not let it cause division. In such cases, a consensus is likely to leave some people disappointed with the results. Yet both sides should be willing to accept differences without strife. Sometimes the old adage is valid: we just have to agree to disagree—and continue in love.

In a democratic organization in which votes are taken, there usually will be winners and losers. Sadly, win/lose resolutions virtually always divide, rather than unite. But when Christians are united on the basis of our common need of God’s grace; that is, when we can understand that none of us is capable of understanding God’s absolute truth absolutely, then there is the possibility of unity, even when “the other side wins” on a particular issue.

We all love democracy until “our side” loses. But if we are to remain a democratic body, and if we are to choose unity over division, then we all are required to be prepared occasionally to accept defeat graciously, and move on. A broken, divided church is Christ’s worst enemy, and the devil’s greatest friend. Two generations of North Americans are leaving the church (or never getting involved), and the number one reason given is the divisiveness and judgmentalism they see in the church.

It also is good strategy in many cases, once an issue is resolved, to agree to revisit it from time-to-time, preferably on a planned schedule (e.g., once a year). Issues can be re-evaluated, and sometimes new information can influence the outcome. Although in many cases what really divides us is personal pride and unresolved control needs, rather than the truth, it is possible under some circumstances that humans actually can change a position when convincing new data is provided.

But in some cases there simply will be nothing we can do in our human strength to mend our differences. If we selfishly (and often irrationally) cling to the belief that we cannot be wrong and that our preferences are better than others’ opinions, division will be unavoidable.

I've done conflict resolution consultations between departments of corporations, in school settings and even in city government; but, whether the conflict is between marriage partners, parent and child or in some larger corporate setting, I always begin with two questions: (1) Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight? (2) Which is more important, this issue or the effective continuation of the relationship? I truly believe that any conflict can be resolved to the benefit of all parties. Obstinate pride is the only impenetrable barrier to unity. 

At the infamous “bottom line,” after prayerfully giving our best effort toward agreement, sometimes we just have to settle instead for understanding, and graciously accept the will of the majority, even when we disagree. While no single issue should ever take precedence over the unity of the Body of Christ, when the disagreements begin to outnumber the agreements, it may be time to lovingly part company. But in the Body of Christ, it is never--EVER--acceptable to fight.

I'm not suggesting that we surrender our convictions; indeed, I already have suggested that resolved issues should be reexamined from time-to-time. Such reevaluation should always include new data and new perspectives, and should never be simply the resumption of beating the proverbial dead horse.

Limited as we are by the clay of which we are made, I may be wrong! In deference to that possibility, once we have presented our case and born witness to our deepest convictions, if we then acknowledge our own fallibility, and if we voluntarily and humbly subordinate our own need to "win the fight" for the greater good of a unified church, we please God. 

And pleasing God gives greater joy than getting our way.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #6

The Purpose of Unity: God Can Finish What God Has Begun

Philippians 1:6 (NRSV) I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

If you are active in a church or synagogue or other faith community, think  of times, situations and events in which you see God at work in that group. Is that work completed, or is it still in progress? The verse from Philippians promises that God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

If your faith community has discerned a vision or mission or other guiding expression of God’s call, where and how do you see that being lived out in the life of the community? Again, God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

[And when I look in a mirror I rejoice that God isn’t finished with me yet!]

There once was a young minister whose first parish was a small church in a farming community in the Midwest. There was some resistance in that community to a woman minister, and she found a cool reception on her first Sunday.

“They’ll warm up to me as they get to know me,” she assured herself, and she set out Monday morning to begin calling and getting acquainted. She approached the first farm house, and was greeted with restrained courtesy.

In her most enthusiastic, bubbly voice, she began, “God has so richly blessed you on this farm. Every direction I look I see healthy cattle and green fields. It’s such a beautiful place God has given you.”

The farmer cleared his throat and said, “Well, preacher, you shoulda’ seen this place when God had it by himself.”

It’s true: God completes what God begins; and God’s work sets us up for accomplishment. God gives us all we need; but God doesn’t do the work for us.

In Paul’s joyful letter to the church in Philippi he writes of two days: “^1:5(I am) thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.  ⁶And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. There’s a “first day” and a “day of completion,” which he calls “the day of Jesus Christ.”

The uncertainties and upheavals surrounding our own lives us remind us that the day of completion has not yet come. We live in a “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world, to which there are two usual responses:

The first is a kind of utopian expectation that things will get better and better until they reach an omega-point (“the day of Jesus Christ”) and it is the task of Christians to work for that day. We are commissioned to build the kingdom of God, and its growth is a foregone conclusion.

There are two problems with that understanding: (1) in the verses quoted above God is the subject of the sentence, not us; it is God’s work, not ours, that will bring about the day of completion. (2) Life contradicts it—things are not getting better and better.

The second response in the “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world is fatalism: why bother? No matter how hard we work, the outcome is not up to us.

The truth is that some things are important and deserve our faithful efforts; other things are to be left to God, and part of our work is to discern the difference. And while we wait for that day of completion, our calling is to live in unity in order to live out our servant vocation.

There’s a story that’s been around for awhile. It’s about another minister going to a new parish. On the first Sunday he disguising himself as a homeless man and showed up at the front doorstep of the church holding a cardboard sign asking for money. The people either ignored him as they entered the church, or told him to go away.

There was concerned when their new pastor hadn’t shown up, and the time for worship drew near. Imagine their dismay when the homeless man walked down the center aisle, peeled off his shabby wig and beard, donned his pulpit robe and introduced himself. Then he announced his text, “Inasmuch as you did it not to the least of these…”

That church had no unified sense of calling regarding the work to which the minister’s text referred; therefore the work was not completed. 

Compare that story with the stories of countless churches and faith groups that engage in times of prayerful discernment and, having discerned God’s calling move together toward the fulfillment of their calling.

Or contrast the story with the inestimable number of faith groups involved in some hands-on form of mission, whether its purpose be evangelism, feeding the hungry, visiting prisons, organizing a mission trip to Honduras, hosting a blood drive, participating in “Habitat for Humanity,” or any of innumerable expressions of God’s work. In virtually every case the work produces a sense of unity among those who participate, and those involved will likely participate in more mission-oriented activity in the future.

God completes what God begins; but God is not finished with us yet.

It works both ways, and it matters little whether the church discerns a common sense of calling and on that basis unifies their life and work, or whether it is through doing the work of the Gospel that the church becomes unified and discerns its calling. Whether the heart follows the hand or the hand follows the heart, the Lord’s work moves toward accomplishment, and “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #5

Principle 5: The Strategy of Unity: A Ministry Partnership

My previous blog addressed the fourth biblical principle of unity, The Model of Unity: The Mind of Christ, based on Philippians 2:4, “…in humility regard others as better than yourselves…” In retrospect it occurred to me that, while there are loving, edifying ways to debate and resolve conflict, in the humility that typifies the Mind of Christ, a first consideration always will be, “What if I’m wrong?”

I understand that some people just can’t comprehend that concept. In an overwhelming majority of times when I confront someone with the question, “What if you’re wrong?” the response is, “But I’m not.” Without the humility to consider—honestly—the possibility that he or she may be wrong, no person can participate effectively in the satisfactory resolution of any conflict.

But, on to the fifth principle:

I Corinthians 1:8-9 (NLT) (God) will keep you strong to the end, …for he is faithful to do what he says, and he has invited you into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I’m flirting with the edge of meaning when I choose the New Living Translation, which says, along with four other English translations, “…he has invited you into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In the original language the word is koinonia, which usually is translated, “fellowship.” Forty-two of the English versions available to me say, “…he has invited you into fellowship with his Son…”

The word literally means, “common”—as in common property. It is the basis of English words, like “community” and “communion.” The Amplified New Testament uses two words: “companionship and participation;” while the Easy to Read Version says, “(God) has chosen you to share life with His Son…”

I think the word, “partnership”, is totally appropriate.

Another word captures my attention: “…he has invited you into partnership.” It is the same word used in…

* Galatians 5:13: “…you were called into liberty…”

* Ephesians 4:1: “I … urge you to live a life worthy of your calling.”

* Colossians 3:15: “And may the peace of Christ reign in your hearts, be-cause it is for this that you were called together as parts of one body.”

The noun form means “those who are called,” and is most often translated, “church.” It is within Scriptural integrity to say we are called into partnership with Christ, and that constitutes a valid definition of “church.”

Again, like humility in the previous blog, this is a “hard sell” in a consumer cul-ture whose mantra is “the customer is always right.” The world defines “membership” as “paying your dues and getting your benefits.” The New Testament defines membership in the Body as “being called into partnership with Christ.”

From the greatest figures in the history of Israel and the church, to the most anonymous person on the back pew of some tiny congregation in the remotest part of Appalachia, all of God’s servants are called to personal roles and functions in the Body of Christ.

The calling of God is unique for each person. Some are dramatic: Peter Mar-shall, Saul of Tarsus, Convicted Watergate felon, Chuck Coalson. We can get so distracted by wide-screen, Technicolor celebrity calls that we completely miss the “still small voice” God may use to call us.

Jeremiah, Isaiah and St. Paul (among others) say God called them “from their mothers’ wombs.” In a sense God’s call is embedded in our DNA—not so much “event” as part of our identity as persons created in the image of God. It’s a kind of “Calling by Self-Discovery”; and some of us just kind of “grow into it” as we pay attention to the things we love to do and the things that bring us a sense of fulfillment and the things that other people affirm in us.

Some of us are less self-aware, so it takes something a bit more theatrical to get our attention. For some of us it takes a 2 x 4 upside the head; and some of us actually go through life blissfully oblivious to our calling. But all of us are called—every life has divine meaning and purpose, and those who discover it rarely demonstrate symptoms of depression or aimlessness or emptiness.

So, the callings of God’s servants vary greatly, but the calling is never to a merely private faith or piety. Isaiah’s call was not simply to restore Israel, but to extend God’s salvation to the “end of the earth.” In the opening lines of the Corinthian letter, when Paul says “you are called,” the “you” is plural—it’s “y’all are called!” It is not enough for us believers to cherish only a private faith; our fellowship with one another and our witness to the world, if faithful, will reflect the partnership with Christ into which God has called us.

Partnership. Here’s the IRS definition: “the relationship existing between two or more persons who join to carry on a trade or business. Each person contributes money, property, labor or skill, and expects to share in the profits and losses of the business.” And Wikipedia defines it as “an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.”

Let’s consider one more New Testament image of partnership: the church as the bride of Christ. The traditional marriage vow is a promise to love and to cherish… “in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse.” Remaining faithful only as long as we agree with each other does not fit any definition of partnership—or unity. 

The good news is that our partnership is not dependent upon any of us being right, nor upon any of us being in agreement on any specific issue. It is God alone who "will keep us strong to the end, for he is faithful to do what he says, and he has called us into partnership with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

And that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim