We spoke last time about the authority of the cross as the
ground of our standing in right relationship to God. This fellowship with God does NOT depend on
moral perfection, doctrinal conformity on every point, or on choosing to
affiliate with the right church.
But what does this mean to us in making applications to our
fellowship with men? We saw how Paul appealed to the cross as the basis for
unity among the Corinthians. How does it
apply to church divisions and church fellowship today? In order to address our doctrinal
differences, we have developed and relied on a lawyerly approach to
“establishing authority”. It leads us to
wrangle over generic vs. specific authority, and over command, example and “necessary
inference”. Now I do not wish to
dispute that there can be value in these concepts. I agree, as many have expressed, that they
are simply the basic ways one can communicate, teach, or indicate
approval. And as such, they are great helps
for brethren who love each other and want to study the Scriptures together. But they are just tools that help us
illustrate and communicate. And unfortunately,
too often they are used as tools for scoring points, “boxing in”, and winning
debates between two men whose aim is to defeat each other. And this type of approach grows from the
assumption that a man’s fellowship with God depends on his degree of doctrinal
correctness. And the consequence is
rampant division.
Where does the true authority lie? [We don't need to “establish it”, we need to ALL
submit to it!] From where do we have a scriptural basis to call ourselves
children of God? From where do we have a
“right to act” as the people of God? On
what basis can we challenge our brother and discuss doctrinal differences with
him? [I am not saying we shouldn’t do
so, rather asking on what basis we should do it.] Is it on the basis of our being correct and
being able to PROVE we are right by command, example or inference? Will that save us? Will it save my brother with whom I
disagree? Or is it on the basis of the
cross of Christ, the fact that we both walk as part of the new creation, and
that we are both committed to that, and to showing that commitment to our
brethren, even those with whom we disagree?
Should we not teach, exhort, reprove, and debate from that basis? from
that authority, the authority of the cross?
“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I unto the world.”
(Gal. 6:14)
There are two powerful and complementary (though at first glance
they seem in contradiction) scriptural concepts about fellowship to be directly
drawn from the authority of Jesus’ cross.
The first is that unity among Christians
is demanded by it. In Rom 14 and in 1 Cor. 8-10, Paul’s pleas for unity among brethren are based squarely in the
demands of the cross. “Destroy not for
meat’s sake, the brother for whom Christ died.”
And “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Christ…”. In dealing with these
issues, personal conviction (Paul is NOT treating “matters of opinion” vs. “matters of faith”)
is not to become a matter for judgment of another brother, looking down on him
or on the congregation because they don't share your conviction. And likewise personal liberties are not to be
used carelessly, without regard to their impact on the souls of others. So the cross calls for our unity, and
provides a strong working basis for it.
But the second concept drawn from the cross is that there
are behaviors on the part of members that betray our calling in Christ, and
these DO require the severing of those congregational ties. It is possible to turn one’s back on the new
life in Christ, to throw it away and turn back to the world. That is what Satan works for. And it is possible to undermine the faith of
tender young souls in Christ and to work against the unity of God’s people. For such flagrant disregard for our own
souls, and for the souls of our brothers and sisters, the authority of the
cross demands separation, withdrawing of the fellowship of the faithful
family.
Explicit examples of instructions about these are found in
Paul’s writings. First, in 1 Cor. 5, there
is the case of the man flagrantly living in incest with his father’s wife,
while the congregation is smugly proud of it.
Paul calls on the Christians there – smack in the middle of all of his pleas
for unity and tolerance – to “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”. In 2 Thess 3, he urges them to confront the
man who walks (continues to live) irresponsibly, expecting others to take care
of him. They are to withdraw from him if
he will not repent. Finally, to the
Romans he writes that they should “mark those who cause divisions and offenses
contrary to the doctrine…” – those who “serve their own bellies” – and avoid
them (Rom. 16:17).
Note this paradox. On the one hand, the cross demands
tolerance – no, not just tolerance, but welcome - among brethren who differ regarding
their private liberties and convictions over doctrinal issues (these are often
based on our traditions). We are not to
destroy one another over such things. We
are not to “defile the temple of God” (1 Cor 3) with factions over such issues,
following this man or that one. We are forbidden to let our perceived
liberties be the congregational wedge of division and strife. Nor are we to allow our deeply held private
convictions to cause us to look down our noses or shun our brother who doesn't
share them. But on the other hand, the cross demands that when necessary we purge
from our midst those who impenitently live in contradiction to the values of
holiness and honesty and self-control and accountability, as well as those who
destroy the precious unity of the saints and who undermine the faithfulness of
Christ’s little ones, causing them to stumble. These cannot be allowed among the Lord’s
congregations.
No comments:
Post a Comment