I’ve been threatening to write this series for a while, so here goes.
I’ve been in the Church long enough to both get really charged by differences in doctrine and also pretty disgusted. You still see both extremes in modern Christianity. You get the people that just don’t care what you believe about Jesus: “You think He was an alien from Venus? Cool! I’d love to hear more about that!” And then you get the Christians that make everything heresy: “You think Jesus ate blackened fish instead of raw? Heresy!”
Obviously I’m making light, and obviously there is a balance somewhere inbetween.
Doing organic/simple/housechurch has been an interesting experience. Combined with the Hospitality House ministry I was a part of in Korea, the years have taught me that there are a lot of different people with a lot of different doctrines out there. And in a normal, neo-traditional fellowship, you’d hand them a doctrinal statement they have to sign off on and then hold them to it whether they really felt convicted about it or not since you had the control of who got to speak and teach.
But if you believe, as we do, that every true disciple of Christ has the gift of the Holy Spirit and is able to bless and contribute, even in the worship meetings, then certain personal doctrines and perspectives start to show up and either you make it a big deal or you don’t.
There are many guards against this, but for some, even in organic church, the answer is still a strict set of beliefs that you either agree with or there’s no fellowship. We don’t really have that, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t doctrines that are problematic enough to challenge and correct. And we have.
Our particular group is very diverse in doctrine. And I would guess most fellowships are pretty diverse … you just don’t get to see it because the system doesn’t allow teaching except by an ordained few. But we have people from just about every type of background.
A lot of doctrinal differences, from my experience, come down to two people who have been taught an aspect of the Kingdom and then define strict truth according to that thing that God has taught them about.
I’ll give an example. Let’s say Bob has really been studying and learning about how the Trinity is one and unified in every way. Then we have Tom who has been dealing with the three separate persons of the Trinity and how distinct they are and their roles and such. Then these people meet, both convicted of their own positions, and they are so busy calling each other heretics that they don’t realize that they are both probably right and could really learn from one another instead of contending.
Hopefully I didn’t just really offend anyone even with that example, but if I did, that would probably just prove my point.
On the other hand, there are doctrines that the early Church was really concerned about, things that when taught were considered dangerous to the Truth of Christ and His work in His people. These are dealt with in the Bible, even in some extreme cases to cut off fellowship. That’s what this series will be about.
And you know what? It might surprise you what they are and what they are not. Not to get too ahead of myself, but there is no biblical evidence that people refused fellowship over whether you believed you could lose your salvation or not. Of course I hold my belief on the issue, and I’m not even saying it’s not important, just not as important as you might think … at least if we really believe the Bible.
Anyway, you’ll get the first one tomorrow if you’re still reading this without wanting to punch me.
Peace.
Looking forward to this one. That must be what needled me most about the “eternal security” thing, among others, when I was growing up in the church. Important, yes. But not as big as we made it, I’m afraid.
*grabs popcorn*
I’m in. Let’s go.