Last night four of us got together at Panera to discus some recent topics (and disagreements) from the list/site.  Neither George nor Becky could stay for long, Michael (Pilgrim) and Lance were there a while longer; when the man at the next table asked if we were talking about the posting on the House Church site!  Much to our surprise it turned-out to be Garry who is also in our network. Garry added another great dimension to our discussion. Only minutes later a younger man said "This sounds like an interesting discussion", and asked if he could sit-in!

You couldn't have planned this if you wanted to--clearly this was a God thing!

The younger man, Andy, turned-out to be a Roman Catholic on-track to enter seminary.  He too had great insights from a yet another perspective!  After hours of deep theological discussion, laughs, and challenging opposing viewpoints (plus a little extra coffee); we swapped email address, shared Bible verses, and went our separate ways.

With all our varied backgrounds and Theological differences, the evening became a study we hadn't planned on.  In retrospect the topic we danced around all night, without ever saying so, (at least for me) was:

"How do we avoid fellowshipping with unbelievers, while staying in genuine dialog with those with a different Christian belief and practice?"

2 Corinthians 6:14 tells us: Do not be bound together with unbelievers, and, Hebrews 10:24-25 tells us not to forsake fellowship with other believers.

Wait just a second...what if I don't consider him to be a real believer?  Let's say I decide someone deserves the label of "Heretic"  (I realize we don't burn them at the stake any more):

• should I discontinue all dealings with them?
• should I warn others to stay away?
• should I stay and fight for truth (as I see it)?
• should I ignore our differences, and just 'get-along?'
• should I remain in friendly disagreement?
• Is there a line? If so, where do I draw it?

What an incredible night's discussion.  And what a great and wise God...bringing this array of believers together to learn and be challenged!
Feel free to add your insights below!

I agree that contending for the faith is important, but I think that beyond courage and and bold love for God and His people, it takes humility, gentleness, respect and a love that is demonstrated by words and actions.  

What happened Tuesday night prior to George and I leaving (from my perspective) was not "struggling and striving with one another" that was a "very healthy and good thing."  I am glad that it apparently turned into a wonderful meeting, but I left because the argument was generating way more heat than light (again, from my perspective).  

It is great to be iron that sharpens iron, but could I point out that we are called to share the reason for the hope that we have with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), and that in 2 Timothy  2:23-26 it says,  "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.  And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.  Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

Beyond Tuesday's meeting, I have seen some posts that do not seem to reflect gentleness and respect for others.  We are called to speak the truth with love.  Could I suggest that people pause before posting and consider whether or not they are doing that.  I think that not doing so might be having the effect opposite from what the poster intends--people are ultimately pointed away from God rather than toward Him.

~~Becky

  Garrison Keillor, in his book Lake Wobegon Days, pages 130-131, has a great parody of American fundamentalist Christianity, specifically the Brethren group he apparently grew up in:

 "   We were "exclusive" Brethren, a branch that believed in keeping itself pure of false doctrine by avoiding association with the impure. Some Brethren assemblies, mostly in larger cities, were not so strict and broke bread with strangers--we referred to them as "the so-called Open Brethren," the "so-called" implying the shakiness of their position--whereas we made sure that any who fellowshiped with us were straight on all the details of the Faith, as set forth by the first Brethren who left the Anglican Church in 1865 to worship on the basis of correct principles...Unfortunately, once free of the worldly Anglicans, these firebrands were not content to worship in peace but turned their guns on each other. Scholarly to the core and perfect literalists every one, they set to arguing over points that, to any outsider, would have seemed very minor indeed but which to them were crucial to the Faith, including the question: if Believer A is associated with Believer B who has somehow associated with C who holds a False Doctrine, must D break off association with A, even though A does not hold the doctrine, to avoid the taint? The correct answer is: Yes. Some brethren, however, felt that D should only speak with A and urge him to break off with B. The Brethren who felt otherwise promptly broke off with them. This was the Bedford Question, one of several controversies that, inside of two years, split the Brethren into three branches. Once having tasted the pleasure of being Correct and defending True Doctrine, they kept right on and broke up at every opportunity, until, by the time I came along, there were dozens of tiny Brethren groups, none of which were speaking to any of the others.   "

  This isn't total fabrication; see pp. 104-106 of the Corey biography of E.W. Bullinger. The point is, I see Jesus as more inclusive than exclusive, more focused on living a life of love than making sure everyone has correct doctrine. I can accept Catholics just fine; there are points of their belief system I can't accept, but we worship the same Jesus and for the sake of love, we can agree to disagree about some of the finer points. If Jesus could accept the woman caught in adultery and some of his other less-than-kosher followers, I can accept those whose followership of Jesus is different than mine.

  I read a book a few years ago called Jim and Casper Go to Church, in which a believer and his friend, and atheist, visit a dozen or so churches around the country. The upshot question that arises from all they experienced was from the atheist: "Is this really what Jesus told you guys to be doing?" When it comes to challenging other believers about how they worship, it's hard to know just where to draw the lines, but I have to ask that same question of the whole blast-'em-with-doctrine approach. There may be things I need to repent of, but I'm sure that's true of all believers at times. But lambasting people about what they believe and how they interpret the Bible and the faith handed down to them isn't the way to do it. It's an ongoing process of gentle encouragement by the Spirit and those led by the Spirit, and it is encouragement, even when you have to encourage someone not to do something or to change their outlook on certain things.

  As I said Tuesday night, Rob Bell has had a very positive influence on me and I really like what he has had to say, up to Love Wins and even including a lot of that. I'm not ready to throw out the doctrine of hell yet. But I'm willing to listen to what he and others have to say, weigh it against the Bible, and discuss it with them. I still consider him a Christian, one with legitimate questions about the faith. He's not afraid to ask the questions which naturally arise from the Word but which most people avoid. And he's right in a sense: in the end, love does win. James 2:13: mercy triumphs over judgment.

  Gary (wonderfool2@msn.com)

  Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:59:41 -0700
From: wmichaelclark777@gmail.com
To: wonderfool2@msn.com
Subject: [springschurch.net] Re: Wonderful meeting at Panera Bread

Becky,

Thanks for the rebuke!  The Lord knows whether I needed it or not, and whether you are doing the same judging toward me that you seem to imply I am doing towards others.  I reckon that we have differing definitions of love, respect, humilty, gentleness and so on.  I have little time for those who say they are Christ's and teach and live otherwise.  I have less time for those who are willing to compromise what is right and true in the name of kindness and being conciliatory.  From my reading of the history of Evangelicalism, so-called, in recent times, and the luke-warmness and gross compromising of truth and grace that I have observed amongst professors of faith in Christ here and throughout our country of late, we have drifted far from our historical moorings as a people and need an awakening to the voice of God's word and Spirit.  I'm sorry if my passion and zeal offend needlessly.  But I'd rather have God's approval than your's or anyone else's.

If I have been unkind to you, dear sister please let me know so that I can seek your forgiveness.  It really means a lot to me.  If, however you simply disapprove of my ministry to the others on this site because of what you perceive to be a lack of Christian love, I urge you to pray earnestly for me, so that I may come to my senses, as the apostle puts and come to the knowledge of what true agape is. 

Hey, I'd love to meet with you sometime to discuss this further, if you're not too turned off to me at this point.

In and with Christ's love,

Michael

Like