Cooperating 002

I'm still pondering the essay I need to prepare for my application to Seminary:

Q. How can Christians of differing theological viewpoints cooperate?

As I was considering my answer, I picked up a Manual of Interchurch Relations from the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). The small booklet gave a scriptural proof for an excerpt from the Covenant 1871 (found in the constitution of the RPCNA, section 4, page I-9). Here is the excerpt and below I'll give their summarized points:

That, 1believing the Church to be one, and that all the saints have communion with God and with one another in the same Covenant; 2believing, moreover, that schism and sectarianism are sinful in themselves; and inimical to true religion, 3and trusting that divisions shall cease, and the people of God become one Catholic church over all the earth, 4we will pray and labor for the visible oneness of the Church of God in our own land and throughout the world, 5on the basis of truth and of Scriptural order. 6Considering it a principal duty of our profession to cultivate a holy brotherhood, we will strive to maintain Christian friendship with pious men of every name, and to feel and act as one with all in every land who pursue this grand end. 7And, as a means of securing this great result, we will by dissemination and application of the principles of truth herein professed, and by cultivating and exercising Christian charity, labor to remove stumbling-blocks, and to gather into one the scattered and divided friends of truth and righteousness.

The numbers are my addition. They correspond to the following points, which were given to summarize the above paragraph:

1. The Church and Christians are one.
2. Denominational divisions result from sin.
3. The blessing of unity is to be looked for in the future.
4. Visible unity must be the goal we work toward.
5. Unity must be based on Biblical truth and order.
6. Fraternal relations are to be fostered.
7. Stumbling blocks are to be removed so that organic union will be secured.

I think these points make sense... I'm pondering them as I consider how we as Christians ought to cooperate, even though we do come from different theological backgrounds.

Distinct vs. Separate... FIGHT!

When I say that something is distinct, I don't mean that it is necessarily separate. Let me explain:

I might say that we can distinguish between parts of a piece of fruit. Take, for example, an orange. An orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Each of these are essential to this particular object. An orange has each: a peel, fruit, and seeds (unless it is genetically sterilized to be seedless...). As I speak about them, I distinguish between the peel and the seeds. These parts are distinguishable... I could separate the peel from the fruit. If I did so, I would no longer have an entire orange. I would only have a part of an orange. To have a complete orange, you must have all the parts.

I think the example of the orange introduces the difference between calling something distinct and separating its parts. It is critical to understand this difference when either term is used to describe a theological concept. I'll introduce two:

In the testimony of the church to which I belong, there is the following statement:

(13.4)

Sanctification is inseparably connected with justification, but is distinct from it. By justification the sinner is acquitted from condemnation; by sanctification he is made holy, and prepared for the happiness of heaven. Justification is complete at once, and equal in all believers; sanctification is neither equal in all, nor perfect in any, while in this life. Nevertheless, all who are justified shall be completely sanctified.

In the above, we see distinction and separation used in a theological assertion. Specifically, justification and sanctification are mentioned. I won't go into the details of what each is just yet, but I will affirm that they are distinct, but not separate. What I mean is that if a person is justified then they are also being sanctified. These are not separate, indeed they cannot be. The testimony uses "inseparably connected" to describe this. This is like saying that an orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Take away one, and you no longer have an orange. Take justification away, and we can't expect sanctification. Take sanctification away, and we shouldn't presume that there ever was any justification.

There is also distinction in the assertion above. It identifies how justification is different from sanctification. Justification is different from sanctification. They can be distinguished from one another because they are not the same thing. We can distinguish between a seed and a peel. They are different. They are not the same thing.... but they are parts of the same thing: an orange. Justification and sanctification are parts of the same thing: the work of God in those He saves.

Distinction is important. I hold that we are justified by faith alone. I also hold that this same faith by which we are justified is never alone, it is always accompanied by good works. I don't want to go over that too quickly, because I think it is extremely important. God pronounces men just when they have faith in Jesus Christ. God also brings about change in a faithful person's life: He makes them better people: people more like Jesus Christ. This is the same as saying that justification is always accompanied by sanctification. The two are always found together because they are both works of God's grace in those He is saving.

This has some profound implications:

• We should not presume that we have been justified if we do not also see ourselves being sanctified. (i.e., we should judge a tree by its fruit).
• If God has brought us to have faith in Him, we can trust that we are saved, because the same God who justifies also sanctifies.

The above may seem contradictory. Indeed, it is hard for my finite mind to comprehend all that God has done and is doing in my life. I hold to them both, because I don't know how else we're to read Ephesians 2:8-9 with Ephesians 2:10 any other way:

Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Praise God who justifies and sanctifies His people.

Subordinate Authority

My church recently had the joy of receiving new members. During the service, there were vows taken before God which I witnessed. Also witnessing these vows was a friend of mine who was only visiting the church this particular Sabbath. He later asked me some questions which got me thinking about the issue of authority. Here's what he asked:

How do you rectify proclaiming that the Bible is the source of truth and that you must submit to the authority of the church? I noticed that [the new member's] vows are book-ended by these two statements. The first is about the Bible being the only source of truth, the last is affirming submission to the authority of the church. Maybe I misunderstood the statements, but I know they were both mentioned. ... It just seems to contradict if you claim sole authority in the Bible and yet you submit to the authority of the church as well.

The vows that my friend took notice of are as follows (also found in the Constitution of the Church):

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?
4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?

The questions my friend was asking led to a discussion on the topic of authority, particularly subordinate authority. I have an example which I believe demonstrates what I mean. My wife is the nanny for 3 young boys (you can read about her adventures here). My wife was hired for this job by the 3 boys' parents. These parents have authority over their children. When my wife watches them, the only authority she has is the authority that the parents give her. In a sense, she is under their authority as pertains to how she treats their children. If they commanded the kids to not eat dirt and my wife said it were OK to eat dirt (or fed them nothing but candy, or had them watch violent movies, or instructed them to bite one another, etc. (which she doesn't do!) ), she would be removed from her post and replaced by another. Her authority is a subordinate authority. If the church fails to exercise it's authority in accord with what God prescribes in the bible, He may choose to cut off that branch of believers and grow a new shoot elsewhere (just as He did with unbelieving Israel).

I believe that the bible is God's way to tell His church what He wants them to know. But then the question comes up, what are the key things which the bible teaches? How are we to interpret it? This is one reason why the church to which I belong is a confessional church. The WMCF, Testimony, WMLC, WMSC are standards which are subordinate to God's word in the bible. They summarize what the church believes the bible says. If any error is found in these standards, these errors are to be removed so to align them with the scriptures. I submit to them only because I believe that they accurately summarize what the bible teaches. I submit to the authority of the church because I believe it is being true to the Word made flesh.

The issue of authority is very important... especially for people who consider Jesus their Lord. The church each of us attends has an impact on what we believe and how it plays out in our life. This is a good thing provided the church teaches truth. But if a church's teachings are marginal, eventually the belief of its members become marginal as well. Whether explicitly or implicitly, members of a church submit themselves to the doctrines (and dry theology) they receive there. This makes the issue of choosing and committing to a church important.

Questions I'm challenging myself with:

Have I read all of the confessional standards of my church? Do I challenge them against the scriptures (rather than challenging scriptures against them)? Am I submitting to the church I belong to as a subordinate authority?