Unity as Jesus and the Father are One
Jesus prayed for unity as He and the Father are one.
And Paul admonished Christians to think the same way, to have the same love..
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (RSV, 1Cor 1:10-13)
And Paul admonished Christians to think the same way, to have the same love..
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (RSV, 1Cor 1:10-13)
History
In the first century it was easy:
there was the church with one teaching that came from Jesus
through the apostles and had roots in Judaism. And there was a
false teaching that said the matter is evil and denied true humanity
of Jesus. This was clearly a wrong picture about God's being, man's
nature, and therefore also about salvation.
During the following centuries many doctrines & practices - that we know now - were elaborated. Some are false, some are right. One visible church with the original teachings disappeared. Here and there people arose who followed the teaching of Christ better than their contemporaries and helped to correct some false teachings & practice of their time. Some went to another extreme of the teaching they were fighting against..
Also, during this 20 centuries, many murders, cursing and exclusions of those who think in another way have taken place, often in connection to power struggles. Can we say that some said to others, "You claim to belong to Paul, or to Cephas, and not to Christ. Therefore you are not a Christian." ?
Of cause there were also false teachers and teachings around, but was it so in every separation? Or were the parties so fixed on their wording of a theological question, the fight for the intellectual understanding and for their view of things, that they just didn't try enough to understand the reasons, arguments, why the other expresses the mysteries of God using different human words and symbols? Didn't the theological fights sometimes draw the attention away from the practical fight for an holy & loving character in the daily life? I don't want to go to the other extreme saying that the theological teachings are not important. Anyway, we shouldn't loose the right balance between understandable love (that can be a sign for the world) and the highly intellectual theology. If we have the best theology, but many don't see our love as love, but as arrogance, is our love right then?
During the following centuries many doctrines & practices - that we know now - were elaborated. Some are false, some are right. One visible church with the original teachings disappeared. Here and there people arose who followed the teaching of Christ better than their contemporaries and helped to correct some false teachings & practice of their time. Some went to another extreme of the teaching they were fighting against..
Also, during this 20 centuries, many murders, cursing and exclusions of those who think in another way have taken place, often in connection to power struggles. Can we say that some said to others, "You claim to belong to Paul, or to Cephas, and not to Christ. Therefore you are not a Christian." ?
Of cause there were also false teachers and teachings around, but was it so in every separation? Or were the parties so fixed on their wording of a theological question, the fight for the intellectual understanding and for their view of things, that they just didn't try enough to understand the reasons, arguments, why the other expresses the mysteries of God using different human words and symbols? Didn't the theological fights sometimes draw the attention away from the practical fight for an holy & loving character in the daily life? I don't want to go to the other extreme saying that the theological teachings are not important. Anyway, we shouldn't loose the right balance between understandable love (that can be a sign for the world) and the highly intellectual theology. If we have the best theology, but many don't see our love as love, but as arrogance, is our love right then?
Looking for Solution
There have been attempts of different denominations to cooperate 'preaching only Jesus', but in practice they were influenced by their denominational customs. How far can we practice at all the 'pure Christianity' that is independent form all cultural and traditional influences? Isn't it rather so, that we have to express eternal Christian truth by language of this or that culture?There have been those who base their unity on the principle 'to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent' They look for unity only in matters that are very clear in the Bible, but they came to some fundamentalist/formalistic ideas & practices. (e.g the old Church of Christ who don't use music instruments)
The Ecumenic movement tries to unite with common aims and they do try to unite the teaching and practice, but as much as I read, they base rather on the traditions of denominations than on the Bible. And the denominations are not willing to change their thinking radically..
How to have then the deep unity of the Father and the Son?
It it seems to be the most reasonable as the community has done: to discuss and look for unity on the base of the Bible and of the reasonable understanding of it in the historical context. This way to the unity is fruitful only in humility and readiness to be corrected. But we have to accept that in every little point there is no unambiguous explanation. And therefore in different circumstances, Christians very probably come to different practices in matters that are not clearly commanded in the Scripture.
Deeper unity is the aim, but in the present situation, how much disunity can we tolerate?
For example, if the body of Christ has different members with different gifts and tasks, can we expect all to be teachers and evangelists in a similar level?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the letter |
God and Brethren |
Holy Love | Marriage | Church Authority
