Christians who wonder about this weird old world will often have a certain tension within, resulting from walking between 2 extremes. On the one side is unity. On the other side is "doctrinal purity." I put that in " " because if we are sincere, we would call it my tribe.
I have been criticized on both sides of the issue. I have been told at various points that I am "too accepting" and that "I am not unifying enough." Which one's right? I have no idea; maybe both. Maybe neither. This whole experience has caused me to do some soul-searching and digging into the differences between different groups. I soon learned that most of the denominations in my local area can be categorized within several schools of thought. I am going to list them below for those who are interested, but I will underline the text. The reason for underlining is because it's so dreadfully pragmatic and practical. If you want to avoid the tedious details, skip the underlined part and pick this up on the other side.
Anabaptist. Within this category, we have Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, and independent churches like the one I attend. Almost all are Arminian, not Calvinist. Two main distinctions: 1. baptism for Believers. 2. A distinct view of 2-Kingdoms (separation of church and state) and Point 2 is significant because it's the most significant difference between them and the Baptists; if you are not a Mennonite and wonder why they look different or act differently, it can be traced to this belief. On a personal note, the second point is why I would still identify as an Anabaptist if asked.
Baptist. This category has a spectrum of denominations, from the Arminian Free-Will Baptists to the Calvinistic Reformed Baptists. These stand out for having beliefs in baptism similar to the Anabaptists'. The primary difference I can see is that the Baptists disagree on issues regarding church and state. Where the anabaptist pulls back from the state, the Baptist gets involved, for who better than a Christian to run things?
Reformed. These churches trace their roots back to John Calvin; most are Calvinistic. Presbyterians usually belong here. Some of them take the predestination thing so far that they still baptize infants. The reformed Baptist is a unique denomination that could technically live in this thought, and the Baptist thought because it is Calvinist and believer's baptism oriented. To my way of thinking, some of the brightest theologians live in this thought school.
Restoration. These churches had the ambitious goal of attempting to be the "church you read about in the Bible." Have they succeeded? In some ways, yes, the most popular "denomination" is the Church of Christ; they are not a denomination in the sense that there is no central controlling power, the local elders carry the most authority for the local church, they serve communion every Sunday, are led by a plurality of elders, and sing acapella, in these ways and the name, they are very early church like. What's unique is that they seem to hold to a doctrine that I call "hidden-forbidden." They abstain if the Sunday practice is not listed in the New Testament. For example, guitars in the NT? No. OK. They are forbidden in the church of Christ on Sunday morning. The final point is they are very dogmatic about a believer's baptism by immersion, and if a Baptist or Anabaptist were to join, they might need to be re-baptized by the Church of Christ; this will vary on a church-by-church or case-by-case basis.
Charismatic/Pentecostal. These are like free-will Baptists in that they are Arminian and hold to believers' baptism, but they are not as two-Kingdom oriented as the Anabaptists. So, what's their distinctive? Unlike all the other groups listed, these believe in and practice or attempt to practice spiritual gifts, such as tongues and healing. There is a subtle difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic. The Pentecostal groups, such as Assemblies of God and UPC, have it written in their bylaws that a separate Baptism of the Holy Spirit exists, and tongues always accompany it. The charismatics, such as Vineyard and Calvary Chapel, do not agree with that dogma; they say that it can happen like the Pentecostals say or come gradually or with water baptism. Tongues might happen, or they might not.
Phew! So, how many was that? Five. There are a lot more; I mean, I never discussed the Catholics, and of course, the Mormons are out there with their "3rd Testament." I learned a lot from a YouTube channel called "Ready To Harvest." So look him up; he will probably give you all the information you want on Christian denominations. So, what's a person to do with all these choices (mostly) claiming one scripture? Let's gameplan this out.
Option 1. Let's start a new, unifying church! We are not a denomination. Hallelujah. If it takes off, then fast-forward one hundred years, and you will "roll over" in your grave as John Wesley, Alexander Campbell, and others have done with the realization that your novel "new" church is now yet another denomination.
Option 2. I'm going to pick my tribe and stick with it. Fine, but as you walk along the chamber talking with your tribal buddies and chieftains, you will begin to hear an echo. Oh no! We have wandered into an echo chamber; we only listen to what we want to hear, and we might "gasp" be wrong. Depending on how far we take this, we might be horrified to consider that the Lord would save those outside our chamber without our permission. (OK, OK, last statement enlarged to show texture.)
Option 3. Screw it! I love everybody. Everybody, come in! Let's sup together. Oh, Sue, you don't like that Bible passage? I'm sorry, we won't go there anymore....Hi Bill? You mean you like the passage Sue hates but have another one that you hate, but she likes it? OK, I will skip both. Carl? What do you want? You don't like the first six chapters of Matthew?! (I think I have a headache.) OK, OK, got it. We have to stop using the Bible in our meetings! There is too much division when we do! (Last two statements enlarged to show texture this time.)
Sigh, all these options are bad. What does work? Perhaps we protest too much to the church about the church and not enough to Christ about our lives. What I mean is simply this. Is it possible that Matthew 6:28-34 might also apply to a church context? Particularly where it says, "Seek first the Kingdom, and all these things shall be added to you." Might that apply to figuring out who to unite with and who not to? I think so.
Here's how it might work if you live in an area with no one you know. You desire to obey Christ, and you appreciate all he has done for you; you could simply ask him to show you who to have communion with. When he does, go there. During communion, look around and realize, THIS IS MY CHURCH! Is it really that simple? Maybe. Maybe we just make it complicated.
I will close on a practical note that explains to you very simply where I am on the whole "unite em all" vs "my tribe" spectrum.
As a principal, I will be happy to fellowship with anyone who adheres to what I see as Biblical Salvation. It's an order that goes like this. The unbeliever hears, believes, repents, and is baptized. Put practically, it's very important for me that every person is granted the choice to believe, and all believers get to be baptized. (This excludes me from the most hard-line Calvinist settings or infant baptisms. I am also really uncomfortable with settings that are dogmatic about the mode of baptism.)
There is a deeper level of commitment than mere fellowship if you plan to do God's work together long-term, whether you contribute financially or in time. So, that's what I will address now. So far as committing to walk alongside or fellowship with on a regular basis, in terms of ministry or church, I apply the sermon on the mount. If I sense in my heart that there is no desire to apply all of it to their work, then I will simply not help in that work. Here's how that can look. Keep in mind that this is ONLY in the context of working with or supporting a church or a ministry for the long haul. This has NOTHING to do with relating to an individual person you have beef with. Matthew 18:15-20 is the passage that discusses that.
- Being poor in Spirit. This speaks to having an unselfish heart that makes the rest possible. A poor-spirited person has room for the Holy Spirit to work through him. Poor means lacking, so someone lacking in a selfish or evil spirit has room for God to work through the power of an indwelling Holy Spirit. This is the first beatitude, and the rest of them, as well as the whole sermon, build on this foundation, in my view.
- Love your enemies. Bless those in opposition to you instead of seeking revenge. This is reiterated several times. There really is no rational reason not to simply take Jesus at his word here.
- Marriage Fidelity. God really did intend for couples to be together for life. God wants vows kept. There is no way to overstate this. Practically, if a minister cannot be loyal to his own spouse, how can he be expected to be loyal to anyone?
- Honesty. God's people are expected to be the kind of people who are truthful in all matters, whether it be small talk at the gas station or testifying before Congress. This goes way deeper than the idea that "swear" is bad, but "affirm" is OK. (The two words mean the same thing, so how can this be the case?) I encourage you to read Matthew 5:33-37 through that lens.
- Prayer. The ministry or church in question should be the type of ministry that simply talks to God as opposed to showing off. (This seems trite, but sadly, it's not.)
- Ownership. At the end of the day, does the ministry own anything in this world, or are they stewards? (I'm not talking about who's name is on the deed. It's a matter of heart.) If they are the type to own, they are also greedy. They might try to "own" you someday or treat anyone harshly who tries to "own" their things. If they are the type to own, they will also be the type to worry.
The sermon goes on for another chapter, but you get the idea. If I sense in my heart that a ministry or church does not have an interest in following one of these principles, I will usually not say anything about it; I will simply move on and support the ones who do. I am also only asking for an "interest" to imply that authentic desire, with corresponding effort, is seen. We all make mistakes; that's why I don't ask for a ministry to "do everything right."
Anyway, for what it's worth, this is where I am on 02/17/24. PM me if I need correction or if you want clarification.
-Loren
