Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice. (Part II)
The discussion of uniformity of practice among Christians, especially in the context of a congregation or brotherhood, most likely will cause a wide range of reactions among those who read this. Some may wonder what in the world is he talking about? Others, who either are members of a fellowship that practices uniformity of practice to some degree or in the past have been a part of such a fellowship may feel a negative reaction to a discussion on uniformity. And there will be some who embrace the practice of uniformity at some level and feel it is a blessing.
Those of us who are a part of an Anabaptist/Brethren fellowship certainly understand the issue. I will say up front that I do not have the answers to all the questions that may be asked about uniformity of practice in a fellowship.
Personally I have appreciated unity in practice, at least to a degree. It would be my evaluation that some of the positions taken by my fellowship in past decades have been a blessing to many of us. I am also aware that there are honest questions being asked by sincere Christians about the scriptural validity of the concept of uniformity of practice. It should be noted that many of our fellowships have evolved over time on what is viewed as appropriate or necessary applications of uniformity. It has become a challenge for me to look more deeply and extensively into the issue.
In the next series of posts I will be sharing a combination of observations, statements and questions. I really would like to hear your thoughts as we dig into the question.
It has been on my mind that uniformity of practice is really just a part of a larger discussion, that being unity in the church. So while I have asked about uniformity of practice, I believe it must be examined in the context of what the scriptures say about unity within the body of Christ. So I will be bouncing around a good bit between these two thoughts.
Here are some definitions I found on the word “uniformity”:
- The quality or state of being in the same form, manner, appearance, or degree.
- The quality of lacking diversity or variation (even to the point of boredom).
- The quality of being similar or comparable in kind or nature.
- A harmonious uniformity or agreement among things or parts; consistency.
As it is in all discussions, definitions are important. Arguments are born because, too often, people are not even talking about the same thing precisely.
I will close this installment with these words from Psalm 133:1 – “Behold, how good it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”
DSJ
2 thoughts on “Exploring the Issue of Group Uniformity In Practice. (Part II)”
In the context of uniformity as a church congregation or denomination, I suggest there could be two broad categories:
1) There could be a general consistency of practice that naturally results from the group being “of the same mind,” having not only the same foundation and goals but also living together in the same time, place, and culture, and sharing the same background and social attitudes. This could be rather unintentional. It’s simply the natural result of applying the same truth through the same grid of understanding onto the same context of application.
2) There could be a (written or unwritten) collection of expectations that define (in the eyes of many, not necessarily all) who is a part of the group. Breaking some expectations may result in being disfellowshipped, while others are seen as less important but still result in a certain level of disapproval, or even shaming. In my experience it often seems that the people doing the shaming are not aware that they are projecting shame, but are simply responding in the only way they know how to what they see as an issue of holiness, obedience, respect, etc. — in other words, a moral or right/wrong issue.
The first category seems to me quite healthy and normal, but it does expose a lack of diversity in background and culture. This may indicate a deeper problem (since few, if any, people from other backgrounds and cultures are included), or it may simply be the circumstance of that moment in history.
The second category exposes at least two serious issues. The first is that criteria which are additional to or different from those taught in the Bible are used to evaluate whether someone is in fellowship with the church (and thus with Christ), or to measure their holiness or righteousness. The second is that the typical response to people who don’t conform is completely unlike that of Jesus.
Do these two negative indicators always go together? What is the root cause of these problems? Does having a written set of expectations imply a shift toward #2? Are my categories too narrow, or is there a better way to think about this?
Could the root cause of these problems be traced back to pride?
“the typical response to people who don’t conform is completely unlike that of Jesus” – your comments about hard-heartedness later in this series seem on point to this as well. It seems in my (admittedly, limited) experience that both of these “negative indicators” are often, if not always found together. Is it unavoidable that they are found together, or is it simply a result of the church being formed of fallen men and women?
Comments are closed.