X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:28:51 EST
From:         Dan Harling <harling@ROADRUNNER.PICTEL.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Christians' front.

> Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:46:00 EST
> From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
> Subject:      The Christians' front.
> To: Multiple recipients of list CHRISTIA <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
>
> Dan, Yes, I fully agree that we must do all we can, individually, to make
> the gospel attractive.  The operative word, there, is "individually."
> Church organizations, as we know them, were foreign to the early New
> Testament church, and should be so to us.

Paul did write to "The Church at xxx" in his letters, as did Jesus in
John's Revelation.


> I was responding to Alison's
> idea, I think it was her idea, if not, apologies, that church groups need
> to present a united / unified front to the world.  I couldn't disagree more
> with this because I am not saved nor do I function as part of an
> organization, but part of an organism, totally different.

Even the world's impression of a particular denomination, or of the
Christian Church at large, affects how well the individual members can
communicate the Gospel.  Scandals involving "televangelists" have made
the public that much more skeptical not only of Christian organizations
(e.g., Billy Graham's crusades), but of the motives of individuals who
claim to be Christians.  Thus they become more skeptical of the
message.

While we have no need to fear the reproach of men in and of itself, we
can be more effective if we, as members of Christ's body and
representatives and leaders of his Church, along with the entire body
as a whole, remain above reproach.


> Your citing of Paul's being all things to all men was excellent.  I
> appreciated the reminder.  Paul, spoke only for himself, though.  We can
> and should only speak and act for ourselves in my opinion.  Those who are
> familiar with my rantings know that I am a diehard anti-organizationalist.

Paul very much sounds like he is presenting an example for us to
follow, not just an illustration of how *he* did it.


> It is true that Paul did berate the Corinthian church for countenancing a
> sin that was worse than that of the Pagans.  It is appropriate for a group
> of believers to sanction their fellows when absolutely necessary, but, in
> most matters, in nearly all matters, belief is not up to the group but to
> the individual.

To rephrase: although the Christian Church's reputation in the world's
eyes is unimportant in and of itself, it can influence how individuals
receive the gospel from its members.  Thus we should strive to maintain
the Church's reputation wherever possible, short of sacrificing the
accuracy of the Gospel that we present (which was the whole reason to
care about reputation in the first place).


> No group could possibly represent my beliefs, nor those of anyone else,
> because we all differ.  For that reason, I don't like the idea of
> presenting any sort of front, especially in belief, to the world.  If the
> world sees a front, it should be that we all love God and strive to do His
> will, nothing more is needed, is it?

It depends on what you mean by a "front".  I believe that
denominationalism, particularly in cases of unveiled hostility, is
detrimental to our work in the Great Commission.  World religions and
cults all point to how the Christian faith is fractured over and over
again into sometimes warring factions, and ask how their beliefs could
be true if this is the result.

This is not to say that everyone's beliefs should be identical;
however, the fact that they differ is no excuse for splintering the
body of Christ into a thousand pieces.  Christianity is made up of a
relatively small number of basic beliefs, and a large number of
peripheral issues.  While those who disagree on the basic beliefs
(e.g., the deity of Christ) are justifiably excluded from Christianity,
differences on the peripheral issues do not justify strife within the
Church; nevertheless, that is exactly what results.

I would rather see a Church whose members agree to disagree on the
peripheral issues--even enjoy their differences of opinion--than insist
on conformity and allow themselves to be divided by them.  Imagine how
much more credence we could lend to the gospel with such an example of
love and *true* tolerance!
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                   PictureTel Corp. (so there!)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU