Examining the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part XV)
As I attempt to sort out the issues that I have have been writing about relating to group uniformity of practice, it seems to me that we must consider several principles and truths. No single proposition of truth will guide us to a sound position on group standards or group uniformity.
We have probably all had “experiences” that have influenced our viewpoint on the matter of group standards. Feelings alone, based on our experiences, whether they were or good or bad experiences, are not a good way to determine sound applications of Scriptural principles.
Experiences are useful. But choosing a path of living based on experiences alone is not wise. Experiences often create life perspectives that rest heavily on our emotions. For example, if a group standard is inappropriately presented or hypocritically followed, we may find ourself detesting that particular application of a principle. The application itself may be neutral. It may not be Biblically inappropriate, but it may not be the only way to be faithful to Scriptural principles. Emotionally we can come to view it as intensely disagreeable and no longer want any part of it, because we associate it with disappointing experiences.
Adam made some comments in the previous blog post that were instructive. I had shared the seemingly opposing perspectives that some have proposed:
- If a church standard is not enforced to the point of disfellowship it is better to remove the standard.
- Or, If an issue is not explicitly addressed in the Scriptures it should be viewed as a matter of personal conviction.
Adam responded with this comment:
”It seems to me that these two apparent opposites would end at exactly the same place, unless we are willing to break fellowship (have a “test of membership”) over things not “explicitly addressed in the Scripture”. And this has been precisely the case for many groups….at least, so it would appear.”
Adam’s observation is that if there is not a willingness to break fellowship over an issue it effectively does become an issue of personal convictions. Ultimately, this is probably true. I would also note that in the Brethren story, there were, at different times in history, issues that the Brethren felt strongly about, but were very reluctant to disfellowship a member who was not complying. The advise that would often be given was to “labor” with the “erring” member.
I also appreciated Adam’s observations on the concept of “explicitly addressed in the Scripture”. Here is his comments:
“But I wonder if there isn’t a false dichotomy implied in trying to define what is “explicitly addressed in the Scripture”. It’s all too easy to reduce the Truth to a series of propositional statements. But true and necessary as those statements are, they are not the whole Truth. The Truth is not a statement, but a Person. The true Christian, and indeed the Church, is not so named because of conformance to a standard of behavior, but because of a living connection with the true Vine, illumination of the true Light, and following the true Way.”
Adam is pointing out the problem of reducing Truth to a series of propositional statements. For example, we can declare in a church polity or a statement of standards our response to numerous cultural issues that give us concern based on our understanding of Scripture. The inherent problem is that this can unwittingly lead us to a spiritual environment that rests more on behavioral modification than it does in having “a living connection with the true Vine.” The assumption becomes—if the behavior on the surface is healthy, then the person has a healthy relationship with God.
Adam’s question hits at the heart of the matter.
“How can we infuse our relationships within the church (and our very thinking process on this whole issue) with the Life of Christ?”
Solomon enjoins us to, “Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.” (Prov. 4:26)
The paths we choose ultimately lead to destinations. For us personally. For our families. For our churches. We cannot say behavior has no consequences. Sometimes the consequences are very painful. To become careless or indifferent to application of truth is a path chosen, either intentionally or by default. But, we cannot escape the consequences of the choice.
Paths are about both the issues of the heart and of life choices. We could argue that if our heart is right our choices will be right. Is that necessarily a true statement? Is it not possible that the sincere heart can make bad choices that bring brokenness and sorrow into our lives? Isn’t it true that we need a source of wisdom larger than ourselves? Could it be that one source of this wisdom can be found in the Brothers and Sisters who walk the journey with us? The Holy Spirit uses our fellow travelers in the faith to help keep us on a good path.
We will explore this more later.
DSJ
One thought on “Examining the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice (Part XV)”
I think the concept of experiences producing emotional responses which we then associate with particular doctrines or practices is spot on. I’ve both observed this in others and experienced it myself on numerous points. Usually strong emotional responses are (originally) evoked by people, not doctrines; then they keep popping up whenever something triggers them. It begs the question, what would it take for us to gain the maturity or perspective to process those experiences and emotions properly, so we can be free to think and talk about these questions with more maturity and objectivity? I’m blessed to know some who do (and I thoroughly appreciate that aspect of this blog). It’s also been my experience that people who are quite sure their perspective is objective are often the ones who aren’t.
Even as I was writing the previous comments referred to above, I was wondering, does it have to be this way? Are the two perspectives the only options? As already noted, they’re really not opposite, just coming at the same concept from opposite directions. But the end result doesn’t fit well with Ken Brock’s insightful comments on Part 8 of this series (regarding the parallel between church and family). Violation of family standards does not (normally) result in being disinherited. While clearly the church does need to remove those who are not in Christ, there are perhaps many issues which some of us feel strongly about but do not necessarily indicate a lack of saving faith. Is this the sort of issue that earlier “Brethren felt strongly about, but were very reluctant to disfellowship a member who was not complying”? What did it look like to “labor” with an “erring” member? Is there something here we need to recover?
I wonder if the conclusion that “if there is not a willingness to break fellowship over an issue it effectively does become an issue of personal convictions” reflects a lack of ability to respond with anything other than excommunication. Perhaps Ken’s family analogy is again apt. Does our concept (and practical outworking) of church discipline have the same depth and variety as is exercised in a healthy family?
Comments are closed.