I’ve been pondering the following assertion from Ron Sider‘s Living Like Jesus:
“Still, the modern church prefers to accept only half of Jesus. They willingly accept him either as model or as mediator – but not both. Some urge us to follow his example of love and social concern, but they forget about the cross. Others emphasize his death for our sins, but fail to imitate his actions. But Christianity is strong only when we embrace the whole Christ.”
Several years ago a now defunct web-based organization, Antithesis or ChristianCounterCulture.com, published a manifesto that prophetically challenges contemporary Evanglicalism. It resonated with me then and, with the exception of the dating in the opening paragraph, it remains timely.
From time to time I re-read, what I call, the Antithesis Manifesto to refresh my thoughts. As I reflect on it this afternoon I want to sumarize some of the assertions:
1. Today’s Christian Culture is destroying Christianity
While we are prone to lament the “world” and the decaying values, the truth is that we Evangelicals bear much responsibility for this. We want so desperately to be accepted by the world (for the sake of evangelism) that we have largely become indistinguishable from it. We mimic whatever is popular, and many seem to be driven by the same values systems. (Think about it, How do we guage a “successful” church? Often by size, money, fame, and political clout.)
This value shift has not escaped notice. Not from those outside the Church. And not from a generation inside the church that has grown weary of our impotence, if not our outright hypocrissy.
I recall John Stott saying that if the culture is decaying it is the fault of the church not being the preserving “Salt” it is supposed to be. (See Matthew 5:13) Stott said you can no more blame the culture for decaying than you can a piece of meat. It is the salt that bears the responsibility to the work of preserving.
If we think the world is having a negative influence on the church it is only because the church has chosen to be like the world. It is not the world that is destroying us. We are doing it to ourselves. And collectively, I’m afraid, we Westerners are doing little toward our mandate to preserve our culture. (See Jeremiah 29:7)
2. We must Practice Truth
It is not enough to claim the Bible is truth. We must live that truth. This requires a serious assessment of all of our practices – ecclesiastical as well as personal – and an intentional submission of them to Biblical standards. We need to be “formed” by the Word, not merely familiar with it. And there is no sphere of our lives that is exempt from constant need of re-formation.
3. Our Fellowships must be REAL Communities.
The Gospel not only forms us as “new creations”, but it forms a New Community. As the Manifesto correctly observes: “Too many of our churches are really teaching stations and activity generators. The ‘sharing of life’ in community has had little place.”
The Gospel formed community is an open, inviting, honest place, where participants are interdependent. This runs contrary to our individualism (another value we have assumed from the culture), but it is the Biblical model, and the environment in which Gospel Transformation really takes place.
Conclusion
The whole manifesto reveals a definite touch of Francis Schaeffer’s influence. Perhaps that’s why it resonates with me. But a simple periodic review is not enough. We need to make the appropriate changes. Without them this whole thing is rather ominous. But if there is change there is also reason for great hope.
The Antithesis Manifesto itself concludes with these words:
If Christians take these factors into account, then we may hope for the stirring of a revolution in our day. And, should our Lord delay his return, the century before us may be marked as a time when radical Christian proclamation went forth yet again – in the power of the Holy Spirit – turning the world upside down, forever altering the cultural landscape.
(To read the original document click: Antithesis Manifesto.pdf)
Recent travel has made it difficult to get to a number of things – like posting on this blog. I have one more trip to make this week, then I should be settled in for the better part of the Summer.
Posting on the blog is not the only thing that has been put on the shelf recently. I have not had opportunity to read as much as I like, either. But I have been reading some. It’s rare that I go anywhere without a book or two. It’s just that while I usually juggle three or four books, these past few weeks I’ve been limited to one: The Tangible Kingdom.
This book by Hugh Halter & Matt Smay is focused on cultivating an incarnational community, or on turning the local church into a vital and visible presence in our local community. The premise is that the Body of Christ is called to be a visible and authentic expression of the Kingdom of God as it presently exists.
I think it is important to remember the Kingdom of God is both a present reality AND future hope. At least that’s what Jesus taught. Sadly, though, I think we are prone to focus solely on its future coming. To the extent we focus only on the future manifestation of God’s Kingdom we miss out on a lot. And we fail to give the world around us a glimpse of what will one day be universal – only far better; more perfect than we presently express even on our best days.
I long for such an expression of the Kingdom, so I am excited whenever I can catch a glimpse through those who are practicing such community in their churches.
I’m not quite finished yet, but I’ll probably give a summary and review in a few weeks. In the mean time you might want to check out the related web site: TangibleKingdom.com.
The question occurs to us, What difference is there between faith and hope? We find it difficult to see any difference. Faith and hope are so closely linked that they cannot be separated. Still there is a difference between them.
First, hope and faith differ in regard to their sources. Faith originates in the understanding, while hope rises in the will.
Secondly, they differ in regard to their functions. Faith says what is to be done. Faith teaches, describes, directs. Hope exhorts the mind to be strong and courageous.
Thirdly, they differ in regard to their objectives. Faith concentrates on the truth. Hope looks to the goodness of God.
Fourthly, they differ in sequence. Faith is the beginning of life before tribulation (Hebrews 11). Hope comes later and is born of tribulation (Romans 5).
Fifthly, they differ in regard to their effects. Faith is a judge. It judges errors. Hope is a soldier. It fights against tribulations, the Cross, despondency, despair, and waits for better things to come in the midst of evil.
Without hope faith cannot endure. On the other hand, hope without faith is blind rashness and arrogance because it lacks knowledge. Before anything else a Christian must have the insight of faith, so that the intellect may know its directions in the day of trouble and the heart may hope for better things. By faith we begin, by hope we continue.
– from Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians
As a pastor I frequently encourage people to embrace the Gospel. It is not just to unbelievers that I present that challenge, but to believers as well – even to some who have been Christians for decades.
We all need to grow in grace, and live by grace day by day. But as easy as it sounds, I sometimes have to stop and realize that it may be far easier to say than it is to live out. Many people – many good people – struggle with how to let go of our propensity toward legalism and embrace the freedom found in Christ.
For that reason I find the following article by Richard Pratt, of Reformed Theological Seminary & Third Millenium Ministries, to be particularly pertinent. And it is as entertaining as it is insightful – at least, I think so.
The story behind it, as I understand, is that Pratt had been encouraged by fellow RTS prof, Steve Brown (Old While Guy), to write a book about the experience of freedom found in the Christian life. “I Want to Walk Free, But Still hear the Chains Rattling” is Pratt’s response to Brown’s prodding.
I don’t know where I’ve been, but I’ve missed it. Apparently there is a self published book out there called The Shack that has become one of the most widely read works in country. It is in the process of becomming a major motion picture. And it is a book about theology! Well, it is a fictional story aimed at communicating theology, akin to Bunyan’s classic Pilgrim’s Progress.
The story behind the book’s publishing is… well, quite a story itself. Written by a man to give as a Christmas present to his children, it was never intended to be published beyond a couple copies at Kinko’s. It has risen to reach the Top 10 List at Amazon, USA Today, and Barnes & Noble.
But the book is also apparently polarizing. Some say the theology is questionable. People I appreciate have expressed varying opinions.
As I already stated, I had never even heard of the book, or at the least I never took notice. I do regularly check out the Best Seller Lists to see if there is anything that might catch my interest, but the Shack apparently slipped by. But now, in just the past two or three days I’ve heard Steve Brown do an interview with the author and read a review of the book by Tim Challies. (Click for .pdf the-shack-review)
I’m not sure what I’m likely to think about it once I read it, but I guess I’ve found at least one book for my Summer Reading List.
Inspired by an analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlett Letter, on NPR’s All Things Considered, my friend Nathan Lewis probes beyond the literary and sociologic interests offered from the program. Nathan asks two striking questions:
I want to think through both of these questions.
The following words, along with Francis Schaeffer’s No Little People, were helpful to me when last year we accpted the opportunity to return to East Tennessee rather than pursue opportunities with churches in larger cities:
“Few men have the courage to seek obscurity for the sake of its advantages, but there can be no doubt of the intellectual advantages of a quiet country charge. When I hear men complain of the lack of stimulus in a rural parish, or find them longing to preach to audiences more cultivated and worthy of their talents, I feel disposed to think that the poor quality of their intellectual fabrics is due not so much to lack of proper appliances, but rather to a dearth of raw material. Many a man will tell you that he owes all that he afterward became, to the circumstance that, under God, he enjoyed the quiet rural solitude, and had opportunity of uninterupted thought and reading.”
– Francis Patton, in his biography of A.A. Hodge
Sometimes listening in to others’ conversation is unavoidable – like when you are standing between two aquaintances at the Kroger’s check out line. But sometimes eavesdropping is highly informative – especially when a conversation is in print.
Such an informative, though seemingly improbable, dialogue has been taking place at Christianity Today. Tony Jones, of Emergent Village, and Collin Hansen, of Christianity Today, have been engaging one another about each other’s books, and about the movements they represent: Emergent vs. Young Reformed.
I am familar with Hansen from his work with Christianity Today. A few years ago I read with great interest his piece, Young, Restless & Reformed. I was excited to have confirmed what I had been seeing with my eyes – that many, many young adults are hungering to know God, and have found, as I have, the best expressions of theology flow from the hearts and pens of both old and contemporary Calvinistic authors. Hansen’s article has now blossomed into a book (that I have yet to read).
I am also somewhat familiar with Jones. He is one of the leading voices of the Emergent movement that is seeming to polarize Evangelicalism. But while I was familiar with Jones, quite honestly I’ve read only a little of his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders. But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction – though still not with all his theological premises.
So it was with that familiarity that I read the 5-Day discussion: Emergent’s New Christians & Young, Restless, Reformed.
I found the discussion refreshing. It is not just that both articulate varient positons well. Having read at least some works by both I expected that. It is more the tone. They are both open, honest, and seeking to understand as much as to be understood. It is the mutually expressed desire for agreement – even though they both know they differ from one another, in some respects even significantly. I think this is a great example to many of us. It is a good expression of what Francis Schaeffer writes about in The Mark of the Chirstian. But sadly it is not common enough.
I have been interested in the Emergent movement for several years. Like many others I have some significant concerns with some of the things associated with this movement. Unlike many of my Reformed friends, however, I have been far less critical. For one reason, it seems to me that it is very difficult to lump all things Emergent under one umbrella. Emergents appear almost as diverse as the broad category of Protestant. (Scot McKnight seems to concur. See: Five Streams of the Emerging Church.) A second reason is that some, maybe even many, associated with the Emergents have offered some profoundly important insights that the rest of us would do well to consider. And finally I have tried to be patient because this movement is still in it’s infancy. As the movement matures I assume so will some of their positions. Frankly, I would not want to be judged today on the basis of things I said when I was seven years old; or twelve; or eighteen; or even thirty five! I have to take the immaturity of the movement into consideration whenever I hear or read things that appear off base.
Still, I do have my concerns. The analysis of D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever, or McKnight have real merit.
But I wonder if something might be happening. In fact, I suspect it is. And this discussion fuels my specualtion. I wonder if some of the Emergents, in their hunger for authentic experience of Christianity, might begin to see and embrace the truths of historic theology, perhaps particularly those expressed by the Puritans. While they gets bad PR, Puritan theology was & is radical, profoundly deep, and highly experiential. Those seem to be among the traits that the most sincere of the Emergents are seeking.
The various streams within the Emergent movement will no doubt take some proponents in differing directions as the movement develops. We won’t know where until the Emergent movement grows up. But I hope Jones’ and Hansen’s discussion may be a beginning of something BIG. I for one am hoping we may be seeing the beginnings of a river of neo-Puritanism.
by Francis Schaeffer
Love In Practice
Let me give two beautiful examples of such observable love. One happened among the Brethren groups in Germany immediately after the last war.
In order to control the church, Hitler commanded the union of all religious groups in Germany, drawing them together by law. The Brethren divided over this issue. Half accepted Hitler’s dictum and half refused. The ones who submitted, of course, had a much easier time, but gradually in this organizational oneness with the liberal groups their own doctrinal sharpness and spiritual life withered. On the other hand, the group that stayed out remained spiritually virile, but there was hardly a family in which someone did not die in a German concentration camp.
Now can you imagine the emotional tension? The war is over, and these Christian brothers face each other again. They had the same doctrine and they had worked together for more than a generation. Now what is going to happen? One man remembers that his father died in a concentration camp and knows that these people over here remained safe. But people on the other side have deep personal feelings as well.
Then gradually these brothers came to know that this situation just would not do. A time was appointed when the elders of the two groups could meet together in a certain quiet place. I asked the man who told me this, “What did you do?” And he said, “Well, I’ll tell you what we did. We came together, and we set aside several days in which each man would search his own heart.” Here was a real difference; the emotions were deeply, deeply stirred. “My father has gone to the concentration camp; my mother was dragged away.” These things are not just little pebbles on the beach; they reach into the deep well-springs of human emotions. But these people understood the command of Christ at this place, and for several days every man did nothing except search his own heart concerning his own failures and the commands of Christ. Then they met together.
I asked the man, “What happened then?”
And he said, “We just were one.”
To my mind, this is exactly what Jesus speaks about. The Father has sent the Son!
Divided But One
The principle we are talking about is universal, applicable in all times and places. Let me, then, give you a second illustration — a different practice of the same principle.
I have been waiting for years for a time when two groups of born-again Christians, who for good reasons find it impossible to work together, separate without saying bitter things against each other. I have long longed for two groups who would continue to show a love to the watching world when they came to the place where organizational unity seemed no longer possible between them.
Theoretically, of course, every local church ought to be able to minister to the whole spectrum of society. But in practice we must acknowledge that in certain places it becomes very difficult. The needs of different segments of society are different.
Recently a problem of this nature arose in a church in a large city in the Midwest in the United States. A number of people attuned to the modern age were going to a certain church, but the pastor gradually concluded that he was not able to preach and minister to the two groups. Some men can, but he personally did not find it possible to minister to the whole spectrum of his congregation — the long-haired ones and the far-out people they brought, and, at the same time, the people of the surrounding neighborhood.
The example of observable love I am going to present now must not be taken as an “of course” situation in our day. In our generation the lack of love can easily cut both ways: A middle-class people can all too easily be snobbish and unloving against the long-haired Christians, and the long-haired Christians can be equally snobbish and unloving against the short-haired Christians.
After trying for a long time to work together, the elders met and decided that they would make two churches. They made it very plain that they were not dividing because their doctrine was different; they were dividing as a matter of practicability. One member of the old session went to the new group. They worked under the whole session to make an orderly transition. Now they have two churches and they are consciously practicing love toward each other.
Here is a lack of organizational unity that is a true love and unity which the world may observe. The Father has sent the Son!
I want to say with all my heart that as we struggle with the proper preaching of the gospel in the midst of the 20th century, the importance of observable love must come into our message. We must not forget the final apologetic. The world has a right to look upon us as we, as true Christians, come to practical differences and it should be able to observe that we do love each other. Our love must have a form that the world may observe; it must be seeable.
The One True Mark
Let us look again at the biblical texts which so clearly indicate the mark of the Christian:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)
That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21)
What then shall we conclude but that as the Samaritan loved the wounded man, we as Christians are called upon to love all men as neighbors, loving them as ourselves. Second, that we are to love all true Christian brothers in a way that the world may observe. This means showing love to our brother in the midst of our differences — great or small — loving our brothers when it costs us something, loving them even under times of tremendous emotional tension, loving them in a way the world can see. In short, we are to practice and exhibit the holiness of God and the love of God, for without this we grieve the Holy Spirit.
Love — and the unity it attests to — is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are indeed Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father.
My friend, Seaton Garrett, has developed a great series called Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Disciplines. Here is an excerpt from part 6 on Solitude:
Try an experiment sometime today, get alone for ten minutes and try to be still and quiet. Note how your body responds, where your mind wonders off to, what emotions or feelings you experience. See if it’s not true.
Most of the time I get three responses from people when we do this.
- Restlessness and a desire to get out of there asap. 75% (not addicted, huh?)
- They fall asleep. 5% (maybe a sign we’re out of balance?)
- Relief that they can stop running at warp speed. 20%
In solitude you are likely to encounter God, and yourself. Both can be pretty scary.
To read the whole post click: Solitude
Great series, Seaton.
As the officers of our church and I work through our vision and philosophy of ministry process, there are two simple and fundamental truths that serve as a foundation and shape my thinking.
First, Jesus says: “I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) And the psalmist says: “Unless the Lord builds the house the laborers labor in vain.” (Psalm 127:1) In other words, unless a church (or a home) is built upon the way the Lord wants it, and by the power of God himself, no matter how grand, no matter how great it appears, all our efforts are in vain. Unless God builds our church, God will not be pleased with anything we develop.
Second, one of the characteristics the Lord specifically says will mark his church – his “house” – is prayer. “My house will be called a house of prayer for all Nations.” (see Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13)
Cheryl Sacks, in her book The Prayer Saturated Church, points out that there are some important differences between a church that prays and a house of prayer. (Click: God’s Standard)
I guess, if you think about it, that passage adds two other dimensions to the house God builds.
First we see Global Missions. The passage indicates the Lord is concerned about the Nations – ALL Nations. One aspect of a house of prayer for all Nations is that our prayers should include passionate intercession for the advancement of the Gospel among all People Groups (ethnos) throughout the world.
But another aspect this verse seems to indicate is Unity in Diversity. Our churches should be open to, even cultivate, a cultural diversity within our doors. Our churches ought to be places where peoples from any Nation (literally all ethnos, or ethnicities) should be welcome to come to join for prayer. While not every community has a diverse international community, perhaps our churches ought to at least reflect some of the diversity of our neighborhoods.
As I think about that, Matthew 21:13 provides both a foundation (prayer) and scope or goal of ministry (Nations). That’s a big job. I’m glad God is the builder.
by Francis Schaeffer
When Christians Disagree
What happens, then, when we must differ with other brothers in Christ because of the need also to show forth God’s holiness either in doctrine or in life? In the matter of life, Paul clearly shows us the balance in I and II Corinthians. The same thing applies in doctrine as well.
First, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 he scolds the Corinthian church for allowing a man in the midst of fornication to stay in the church without discipline. Because of the holiness of God, because of the need to exhibit this holiness to a watching world, and because such judgment on the basis of God’s revealed law is right in God’s sight, Paul scolds the church for not disciplining the man.
After they have disciplined him, Paul writes again to them in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 and scolds them because they are not showing love toward him. These two things must stand together.
I am thankful that Paul writes this way in his first letter and his second, for here you see a passage of time. The Corinthians have taken his advice, they have disciplined the Christian, and now Paul writes to them, “You’re disciplining him, but why don’t you show your love toward him?” He could have gone on and quoted Jesus in saying, “Don’t you realize that the surrounding pagans of Corinth have a right to say that Jesus was not sent by the Father because you are not showing love to this man that you properly disciplined?”
A very important question arises at this point: How can we exhibit the oneness Christ commands without sharing in the other man’s mistakes? I would suggest a few ways by which we can practice and show this oneness even across the lines where we must differ.
Regret
First, we should never come to such difference with true Christians without regret and without tears. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Believe me, evangelicals often have not shown it. We rush in, being very, very pleased, it would seem at times, to find other men’s mistakes. We build ourselves up by tearing other men down. This can never show a real oneness among Christians.
There is only one kind of man who can fight the Lord’s battles in anywhere near the proper way, and that is the man who by nature is unbelligerent. A belligerent man tends to do it because he is belligerent; at least it looks that way. The world must observe that, when we must differ with each other as true Christians, we do it not because we love the smell of blood, the smell of the arena, the smell of the bullfight, but because we must for God’s sake. If there are tears when we must speak, then something beautiful can be observed.
Second, in proportion to the gravity of what is wrong between true Christians, it is important consciously to exhibit a seeable love to the world. Not all differences among Christians are equal. There are some that are very minor. Others are overwhelmingly important.
The more serious the wrongness is, the more important it is to exhibit the holiness of God, to speak out concerning what is wrong. At the same time, the more serious the differences become, the more important it becomes that we look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to show love to the true Christians with whom we must differ. If it is only a minor difference, showing love does not take much conscious consideration. But where the difference becomes really important, it becomes proportionately more important to speak for God’s holiness. And it becomes increasingly important in that place to show the world that we still love each other.
Humanly we function in exactly the opposite direction: In the less important differences we show more love toward true Christians, but as the difference gets into more important areas, we tend to show less love. The reverse must be the case: As the differences among true Christians get greater, we must consciously love and show a love which has some manifestation the world may see.
So let us consider this: Is my difference with my brother in Christ really crucially important? If so, it is doubly important that I spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me and my group, that I and we might show love even in this larger difference that we have come to with a brother in Christ or with another group of true Christians.
Costly Love
Third, we must show a practical demonstration of love in the midst of the dilemma even when it is costly. The word love should not be just a banner. In other words, we must do whatever must be done, at whatever cost, to show this love. We must not say, “I love you,” and then — bang, bang, bang!
So often people think that Christianity is only something soft, only a kind of gooey love that loves evil equally with good. This is not the biblical position. The holiness of God is to be exhibited simultaneously with love. We must be careful therefore, not to say that what is wrong is right, whether it is in the area of doctrine or of life, in our own group or another. Anywhere what is wrong is wrong, and we have a responsibility in that situation to say that what is wrong is wrong. But the observable love must be there regardless of the cost.
The Bible does not make these things escapable. 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 reads,
If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another — and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
What does this mean? The church is not to let pass what is wrong; but the Christian should suffer practical, monetary loss to show the oneness true Christians should have rather than to go to court against other true Christians, for this would destroy such an observable oneness before the watching world. This is costly love, but it is just such practicing love that can be seen.
Paul is talking about something which is observable, something that is very real: The Christian is to show such love in the midst of a necessary difference with his brother that he is willing to suffer loss — not just monetary loss (though most Christians seem to forget all love and oneness when money gets involved) but whatever loss is involved.
Whatever the specifics are, there is to be a practical demonstration of love appropriate to a particular place. The Bible is a strong and down-to-earth book.
A fourth way we can show and exhibit love without sharing in our brother’s mistake is to approach the problem with a desire to solve it, rather than with a desire to win. We all love to win. In fact, there is nobody who loves to win more than the theologian. The history of theology is all too often a long exhibition of a desire to win.
But we should understand that what we are working for in the midst of our difference is a solution — a solution that will give God the glory, that will be true to the Bible, but will exhibit the love of God simultaneously with his holiness. What is our attitude as we sit down to talk to our brother or as group meets with group to discuss differences? A desire to come out on top? To play one-up-manship? If there is any desire for love whatsoever, every time we discuss a difference, we will desire a solution and not just that we can be proven right.
The Difference of Differences
A fifth way in which we can show a practicing, observable love to the world without sharing in our brother’s mistake is to realize, to keep consciously before us and to help each other be aware, that it is easy to compromise and to call what is wrong right, but that it is equally easy to forget to exhibit our oneness in Christ. This attitude must be constantly and consciously developed — talked about and written about in and among our groups and among ourselves as individuals.
In fact, this must be talked about and written about before differences arise between true Christians. We have conferences about everything else. Who has ever heard of a conference to consider how true Christians can exhibit in practice a fidelity to the holiness of God and yet simultaneously exhibit in practice a fidelity to the love of God before a watching world? Whoever heard of sermons or writings which carefully present the practice of two principles which at first seem to work against each other: (1) the principle of the practice of the purity of the visible church in regard to doctrine and life and (2) the principle of the practice of an observable love and oneness among all true Christians?
If there is no careful preaching and writing about these things, are we so foolish as to think that there will be anything beautiful in practice when differences between true Christians must honestly be faced?
Before a watching world an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christians’ differences and other men’s differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences from the world’s differences if they see us having our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.
That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, especially in our day when the existence of true truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts.
We cannot expect the world to understand that on the basis of the holiness of God we are having a different kind of difference because we are dealing with God’s absolutes. But when they see differences among true Christians who also show an observable unity, this will open the way for them to consider the truth of Christianity and Christ’s claim that the Father did send the Son.
As a matter of fact, we have a greater possibility of showing what Jesus is speaking about here in the midst of our differences, than we do if we are not differing. Obviously we ought not to go out looking for differences among Christians: There are enough without looking for more. But even so it is in the midst of a difference that we have our golden opportunity. When everything is going well and we are all standing around in a nice little circle, there is not much to be seen by the world. But when we come to the place where there is a real difference and we exhibit uncompromised principles but at the same time observable love, then there is something that the world can see, something they can use to judge that these really are Christians, and that Jesus has indeed been sent by the Father.
by Francis Schaeffer
True Oneness
In John 13 and 17, Jesus talks about a real seeable oneness, a practicing oneness, a practical oneness across all lines, among all true Christians.
The Christian really has a double task. He has to practice both God’s holiness and God’s love. The Christian is to exhibit that God exists as the infinite-personal God; and then he is to exhibit simultaneously God’s character of holiness and love. Not his holiness without his love: that is only harshness. Not his love without his holiness: that is only compromise. Anything that an individual Christian or Christian group does that fails to show the simultaneous balance of the holiness of God and the love of God presents to a watching world not a demonstration of the God who exists but a caricature of the God who exists.
According to the Scripture and the teaching of Christ, the love that is shown is to be exceedingly strong. It is not just something you mention in words once in a while.
Visible Love
What, then, does this love mean? How can it be made visible?
First, it means a very simple thing: It means that when I have made a mistake and when I have failed to love my Christian brother, I go to him and say, “I’m sorry.” That is first.
It may seem a letdown – that the first thing we speak of should be so simple! But if you think it is easy, you have never tried to practice it.
In our own groups, in our own close Christian communities, even in our families, when we have shown lack of love toward another, we as Christians do not just automatically go and say we are sorry. On even the very simplest level it is never very easy.
It may sound simplistic to start with saying we are sorry and asking forgiveness, but it is not. This is the way of renewed fellowship, whether it is between a husband and wife, a parent and child, within a Christian community, or between groups. When we have shown a lack of love toward the other, we are called by God to go and say, “I’m sorry . . . I really am sorry.”
If I am not willing to say, “I’m sorry,” when I have wronged somebody else – especially when I have not loved him – I have not even started to think about the meaning of a Christian oneness which the world can see. The world has a right to question whether I am a Christian. And more than that, let me say it again, if I am not willing to do this very simple thing, the world has a right to question whether Jesus was sent from God and whether Christianity is true.
How well have we consciously practiced this? How often, in the power of the Holy Spirit, have we gone to Christians in our own group and said, “I’m sorry”? How much time have we spent reestablishing contact with those in other groups, saying to them, “I’m sorry for what I’ve done, what I’ve said, or what I’ve written”? How frequently has one group gone to another group with whom it differed and has said, “We’re sorry”? It is so important that it is, for all practical purposes, a part of the preaching of the gospel itself. The observable practice of truth and the observable practice of love go hand in hand with the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ.
I have observed one thing among true Christians in their differences in many countries: What divides and severs true Christian groups and Christians – what leaves a bitterness that can last for 20, 30 or 40 years (or for 50 or 60 years in a son’s memory) – is not the issue of doctrine or belief which caused the differences in the first place. Invariably it is lack of love – and the bitter things that are said by true Christians in the midst of differences. These stick in the mind like glue. And after time passes and the differences between the Christians or the groups appear less than they did, there are still those bitter, bitter things we said in the midst of what we thought was a good and sufficient objective discussion. It is these things – these unloving attitudes and words – that cause the stench that the world can smell in the church of Jesus Christ among those who are really true Christians.
If, when we feel we must disagree as true Christians, we could simply guard our tongues and speak in love, in five or ten years the bitterness could be gone. Instead of that, we leave scars – a curse for generations. Not just a curse in the church, but a curse in the world. Newspaper headlines bear it in our Christian press, and it boils over into the secular press at times – Christians saying such bitter things about other Christians.
The world looks, shrugs its shoulders and turns away. It has not seen even the beginning of a living church in the midst of a dying culture. It has not seen the beginning of what Jesus indicates is the final apologetic – observable oneness among true Christians who are truly brothers in Christ. Our sharp tongues, the lack of love between us – not the necessary statements of differences that may exist between true Christians – these are what properly trouble the world.
How different this is from the straightforward and direct command of Jesus Christ – to show an observable oneness which may be seen by a watching world!
Forgiveness
But there is more to observable love than saying we are sorry. There must also be open forgiveness. And though it’s hard to say, “I’m sorry,” it’s even harder to forgive. The Bible, however, makes plain that the world must observe a forgiving spirit in the midst of God’s people.
In the Lord’s prayer, Jesus himself teaches us to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Now this prayer, we must say quickly, is not for salvation. It has nothing to do with being born again, for we are born again on the basis of the finished work of Christ plus nothing. But it does have to do with a Christian’s existential, moment-by-moment experiential relationship to God. We need a once-for-all forgiveness at justification, and we need a moment-by-moment forgiveness for our sins on the basis of Christ’s work in order to be in open fellowship with God. What the Lord has taught us to pray in the Lord’s prayer should make a Christian very sober every day of his life: We are asking the Lord to open to us the experiential realities of fellowship with himself as we forgive others.
Some Christians say that the Lord’s prayer is not for this present era, but most of us would say it is. And yet at the same time we hardly think once in a year about our lack of a forgiving heart in relationship to God’s forgiving us. Many Christians rarely or never seem to connect their own lack of reality of fellowship with God with their lack of forgiveness to men, even though they may say the Lord’s prayer in a formal way over and over in their weekly Sunday worship services.
We must all continually acknowledge that we do not practice the forgiving heart as we should. And yet the prayer is “Forgive us our debts, our trespasses, as we forgive our debtors.” We are to have a forgiving spirit even before the other person expresses regret for his wrong. The Lord’s prayer does not suggest that when the other man is sorry, then we are to show a oneness by having a forgiving spirit. Rather, we are called upon to have a forgiving spirit without the other man having made the first step. We may still say that he is wrong, but in the midst of saying that he is wrong, we must be forgiving.
We are to have this forgiving spirit not only toward Christians but toward all men. But surely if it is toward all men, it is important toward Christians.
Such a forgiving spirit registers an attitude of love toward others. But, even though one can call this an attitude, true forgiveness is observable. Believe me, you can look on a man’s face and know where he is as far as forgiveness is concerned. And the world is called on to look upon us and see whether we have love across the groups, love across party lines. Do they observe that we say, “I’m sorry,” and do they observe a forgiving heart? Let me repeat: Our love will not be perfect, but it must be substantial enough for the world to be able to observe or it does not fit into the structure of the verses in John 13 and 17. And if the world does not observe this among true Christians, the world has a right to make the two awful judgments which these verses indicate: That we are not Christians and that Christ was not sent by the Father.
Earth Day 2008 just passed me by yesterday. The day came and went with barely my notice. And what little notice I did take came when I saw a blip on the news around 11pm. The day was almost done in the East.
That’s a little disappointing because, quite honestly, a few months ago I had thought it might be a good idea to do a little research and post a short series about the Gospel and its relationship to Environmentalism. That may seem a little odd if you are a conservative. But I honestly think many of conservative Evangelicals are missing something important.
1. Psalm 24 does declare: “The earth is the Lord’s…”; and Psalm 19 reminds us the God’s Creation declares his glory. This suggests, to me, that appreciation and stewardship of our environment is a legitimate part of serving God. It may even be a legitimate resource for evangelism – but only if Christians reflect appropriate appreciation. We need to, to borrow and paraphrase a title of a Tony Campolo book, Rescue Earth Without Worshipping Nature. (No, I have not read the book, but the title is cool. I suspect, as with many of Campolo’s books, I would find many brilliant insights intermingled with a few, uh… unconventional assertions I cannot embrace.)
2. Environmental issues provide a forum in which we can dialogue with the world around us. Certainly there will be a diversity of opinions, and some propositions which will never resonate with Evangelicals. But why are we largely absent from the conversation? I think our failure to speak to this issue in our churches expresses to the world that we don’t really care about an issue that is close to many hearts; and it leaves the members of our churches with really only the non-theistic views of creation and environment to consider.
3. While we battle in the courts and schools to reinstitute Creation Education, we hypocritaclly do virtually nothing with that creation that suggests we care. It is not unlike the charge made against some Pro-Life activists, who passionately oppose abortion, but don’t appear to care enough for the unwanted and poor children who are born and live in horrendous situations. (But that’s another subject… I only intended to point out that there is more behind the issues that Evangelicals do rally around, and that perhaps if we were as passionate and well rounded about these related matters we might find more receptive ears to our proclamations.)
I began to think about this issue several years ago, though I am still no expert. Living in East Tennessee, and before that Western Pennsylvania, it is easy to be awed by the natural beauty of the mountains, rivers, and wildlife. (Yes, for those of you who have never been there, Western PA/Pittsburgh, is beautiful outdoor country!)
At that time I started reading some of the stuff put out by the Evangelical Environmental Network, because I could find nothing else on the subject claiming a distinct Christian world-view. But I was a little disappointed with EEN because of some of the doctrinal views laced throughout their writings. Then I became fully disenchanted with them when they launched the What Would Jesus Drive? campaign against SUV’s. (Jay Leno had probably the best response to that question: “Let’s see. Jesus was a single guy, working as a carpenter, living in a small rural town in the middle of nowhere… What would he drive? Probably a large pickup.”)
But over the years I have found some solid thoughts from the Christian perspective. Perhaps the best I’ve stumbled across is the Cornwall Declaration (.pdf) from the Cornwall Alliance. This is a network of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Jews who recognize that “The Earth is the Lord’s” and that we who live in it have a God-given responsibility to be the stewards of what has been entrusted to us.
Let me end this post by inviting comments. What are your thoughts about Evangelicals and Environmentalism? And if you know of any good resources out there, please let me know.
GRACE & PEACE 
