Unity Or Dissension—Which?

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Unity or Dissension—Which?​

See below
You're Getting Old If​

A fellow believer who is party to one of our many sects related, “Anyone who teaches other than that which is clearly revealed in the Scriptures is a false teacher.” He added, “If he does not surrender his false teaching, he is a heretic and should be treated as one.”

It is correct to say that as long as this brother demonstrates this brand of unyielding attitude, he will remain separated from God’s other children. He categorizes as heretical anyone whose views run counter to his party’s doctrinal platform. He’s a good man, a supportive husband, and a loving father. He’s a graduate of an Evangelical Seminary and has served as “pulpit minister” and Elder for many years. Bless his heart, he has yet to evolve out of the backwoods of sectarianism, where most of us were “stationed” at one time or another.

This brother’s sincerity has never been in doubt, yet his idea of oneness/unity hinges on absolute conformity to his party’s conception of biblical doctrine. He is convinced that his church is the one ushered in by Jesus Christ and that anyone who resists his view of what Jesus founded is in danger of being lost. He believes there can be no unity until all others give up what they have and join him and his church.

In spite of all this, I still consider this man a beloved brother. He’s a beloved brother because he and I have the same Father and he truly feels his concepts are in harmony with the divine testimony. He doesn’t fit the biblical definition of false teacher, for he is not teaching false doctrine knowingly and deliberately.

He reminds me of the way our dearly departed Alexander Campbell, Reformer, once described himself while an adolescent Christian. He said, “I was once so strong a separatist I would neither pray nor sing with others unless they were as perfect as I knew myself to be.” Campbell added, “If I had persisted in this most unpopular course, there could never be a congregation of saints on earth.”

Sooner or later we all must come face-to-face with Campbell’s conclusion. For if everyone must arrive at our level of intelligence and attain our degree of biblical knowledge before unity can be achieved, the community of the redeemed will always be splintered. All of us were once like Campbell in that we were spiritual adolescents—growing, maturing, reaching out, prodding, grasping, and learning. Many of us found greener pastures and higher plains while others fought growth and change and remained adolescents and slaves to the status quo. But free or enslaved, we have the same Father and we are here to prod each other to greater heights.

But getting back to our brother’s partisan stance, what causes the divisive spirit among us? Is it not a matter of allegiance? For if our allegiance is placed in some party, or in some religious journal, or in some church, or in some TV evangelist, we will never unite. We will simply continue hoisting our factional flags and bolstering our parties. The Corinthians were faced with the same problem. The allegiance of some was placed in Paul, others were devoted to Peter, and still others had given themselves to Apollos. Although not physically separated, they were nonetheless divided—divided in that they rejected each other as “faithful” believers.

The great apostle Paul’s admonition is fitting here. He says to “set your affections on things above” (Col. 3:2). The Living Bible hits home by saying that “heaven should fill our thoughts.” Wherever the party spirit makes its abode, heaven is placed in the background and the party becomes the center of attention. But wherever the Holy Spirit is permitted to take the lead, tranquility shines like the noonday’s sun.

The family of believers—God’s ekklesia—had a glorious genesis and a noble existence the first two centuries But then she began to place her allegiance in religious parties, projects, organizations, and church structures. The result has been hundreds of splintered groups or churches—scattered across the partisan landscape.

The solution, as I see it, is that we must cast aside every partisan shackle, dismantle our church idols, dismiss the professional clergy, and reset our allegiance on things above. A united front will then surface, with Jesus as Captain and the Holy Spirit as Counselor. With them by our side, we will beat down every barrier and defeat all obstacles. If some prefer to be left behind to wallow in the ashes of sectarianism, that is their choice. But we will press onward—so help us God.​

<><><>
​

You’re Getting Old If​

1) You try to straighten out the wrinkles in your socks and discover you aren’t wearing any; 2) At the breakfast table you hear snap, crackle, and pop and you’re not eating cereal; 3) Your back goes out but you stay home; 4) When you’re on vacation and your energy runs out before your money does; 5) The iron in your blood turns to lead in your pants; 6) You give up all your bad habits and still don’t feel good; 7) You have more patience, but actually it’s just that you don’t care anymore; 8) It takes twice as long to look half as good.—Selected.​

​

 

[Josheb]

A fellow believer who is party to one of our many sects related, “Anyone who teaches other than that which is clearly revealed in the Scriptures is a false teacher.” He added, “If he does not surrender his false teaching, he is a heretic and should be treated as one.” ​

It is correct to say that as long as this brother demonstrates this brand of unyielding attitude, he will remain separated from God’s other children. He categorizes as heretical anyone whose views run counter to his party’s doctrinal platform.​

????? I do not read the "fellow believer" stating anything about "his party's doctrinal platform." What I read him saying is, "that which is clearly revealed in scripture." Based specifically on what was quoted, how was the conclusion reached his party's doctrinal platform is intended?

Do you agree that what is clearly revealed in scripture absent sectarian/party doctrine is what should be taught?

He’s a good man, a supportive husband, and a loving father.​

Why is that relevant?

He’s a graduate of an Evangelical Seminary and has served as “pulpit minister” and Elder for many years.​

How is that relevant?

If he is a good, educated, and experienced individual then why not give at least some credence to his words? The alternative implication is bad, uneducated, and inexperienced individuals who have no doctrines. You are a (presumably) a good, educated and experienced man with doctrinal biases. You're not above the criticism of others, either. Is the quote below something you've actually said?

"I will gladly absorb and happily accept advice from godly men
if it coincides with what I conscientiously believe is truth and understand
as heaven’s grace."​

Or is that a misquote?

 

[Josheb]

Bless his heart, he has yet to evolve out of the backwoods of sectarianism, where most of us were “stationed” at one time or another......

He reminds me of the way our dearly departed Alexander Campbell, Reformer, once described himself while an adolescent Christian. He said, “I was once so strong a separatist I would neither pray nor sing with others unless they were as perfect as I knew myself to be.” Campbell added, “If I had persisted in this most unpopular course, there could never be a congregation of saints on earth.”

Sooner or later we all must come face-to-face with Campbell’s conclusion.​

That is ironic given the fact Campbell founded a new sect (the Disciples of Christ, from which the loosely associated Church of Christ congregations came) after having departed the Presbyterian denomination and joining the Baptist denomination, later to create one that colloquially bore his own name (the Campbellites).


Haven't I attempted to discuss the multiple problems that originated in the Restoration Movements inherent sectarianism?


How man affiliated congregations does it take to form a denomination? Way back in the 1960s there was a guy who led a congregation that was non-denominational. That congregation sent out local missionaries who eventually established new congregations that were affiliated with the leadership of the original congregation. Those congregations also sent out missionaries to preach the gospel and establish new congregations who were taught the lessons taught those leaders by their leaders, all of whom were following the (supposed) non-denominational preaching and practices of the original founder of the original congregation. That man's name was Chuck Smith and the "non-denominational" sect he founded is now known as Calvary Chapel. Calvary Chapel is now an international association of charismatic evangelical churches. It began with one congregation in 1965 in Costa Mesa, California.

In the 1970s another man also founded a non-denominational congregation. That congregation also sent out missionaries to preach the gospel and establish new congregation, which in turn, also sent out missionaries with the same mission. They also took in pastors leading other local congregations and the flocks they led under the leadership, accountability, and teachings of the original founder of the first congregation. That man' name was Larry Tomczak and the sect he founded was originally called People of Destiny, now called Sovereign Grace Churches.

Church history is filled with examples like this. Each founder sets out to preach "true" Christianity modeled on his (or her) view of the Bible and how the early Church practiced. The problem during the 19th century's Restoration Movement is that no two leaders of restoration had the exact same view of scripture or early Church practice AND each of them called their followers true Christians.

If you want to be a true Christian then come follow my teachings.​

When I say this has happened many times in Church history, it goes all the way back to the first century.


1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1-9
1And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like ordinary people? 4For when one person says, “I am [a]with Paul,” and another, “I am with Apollos,” are you not ordinary people? 5What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8Now the one who plants and the one who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

In the 1800s it was some follow Cambell, some follow Stone, some follow Miller, some follow Darby, some follow Booth, some follow Eddy, some follow Russel, some follow Smith, etc.

Are you not familiar with this history? Have I not broached this with you before?

 

[Josheb]

For if everyone must arrive at our level of intelligence and attain our degree of biblical knowledge before unity can be achieved, the community of the redeemed will always be splintered. All of us were once like Campbell in that we were spiritual adolescents—growing, maturing, reaching out, prodding, grasping, and learning. Many of us found greener pastures and higher plains while others fought growth and change and remained adolescents and slaves to the status quo. But free or enslaved, we have the same Father and we are here to prod each other to greater heights.​

I am unaware that Campbell ever repudiated his establishing the Disciples of Christ or recognized the separation that occurred thereof was something that should not have happened. Did he do so?

 

[Josheb]

But getting back to our brother’s partisan stance, what causes the divisive spirit among us?​

I was not aware the brother in question has a "divisive spirit"? He said those who teach contrary to other than that which is clearly revealed in the Scriptures is a false teacher. How is that evidence (or proof) of a divisive spirit?

1 Timothy 6:1-5
1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brothers or sisters, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. 3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a sick craving for controversial questions and disputes about words, from which come envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5and constant friction between people of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words (as defined in that verse), then he understands nothing and has a sick craving .

2 John 1:8-11
8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9Anyone who goes too far and does not remain in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Did Paul and John have divisive spirits?
.

The solution, as I see it, is that we must cast aside every partisan shackle, dismantle our church idols, dismiss the professional clergy, and reset our allegiance on things above.​

That is utopian idealism. The Church is perfect and impeccable. Its members are not. There have always been some in the Church (and many outside it) who mistakenly thought perfect unity could be obtained through non-sectarian affiliation. Most of them, like Campbel, made the problem worse, not better! The forgot or neglected the fact unity and perfection are found in Christ, not institutional practices. Campbell is a cautionary tale, not someone to be emulated.


I know your thing is house churches. I was thinking about you this morning (seriously, I was), because I host a small group at my home on Sunday evenings. I attend a larger denominationally affiliated congregation for Sunday worship and fellowship, and routinely fellowship with Christians of many affiliations throughout the week, and that is in addition to the men's groups, the Bible studies and the book clubs in which I participate. Every congregation I've joined as a member (regardless of denomination) has small house church groups as part of their teaching and practice. I suppose there are large congregations that do not have the smaller group, but I have neither joined on nor interacted with any of them. I networked with an estimated 50 different congregations during my professional life and still visit many of them in person or online in my retirement. That network covers the non-denominational and denominational spectrum. The unifying factor is the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected is preached.


Ephesians 4:11-16
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.


Isn't the Ephesians 4 text how it's supposed to work?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Josheb, I appreciate your input, but it doesn't take a "biblical professor" to translate what I posted. But if clarity is what you're seeking, do me a favor and read the post again -- but slowly.​

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, I appreciate your input,​

Good. Then collaborate with the discussion .

but it doesn't take a "biblical professor" to translate what I posted. But if clarity is what you're seeking, do me a favor and read the post again -- but slowly.​

Clarify it to me for the sake of the lurkers because the responsibility to be clear and understood is yours, not mine. If it does not take a "biblical professor," then clarifying the matter won't be difficult, laborious, or time consuming.


How do you avoid the problem of sectarianism when you, yourself, have biases...... if not scripture as the authoritative, common, unifying (and dividing) metric?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Josheb, these additional remarks may, hopefully, help a little. It is not necessary to leave the ones we love to abandon the party spirit. The party spirit is, essentially, a separatist and divisive attitude—an attitude that generates division and separation. Religious parties are the end result. We may differ, as did the early believers, but we may not separate into parties or "faithful churches."

The Corinthian believers were in the process of separating into parties (I Cor. 1:11-13). If the partisan attitude had run its course, there would have been a physical separation. However, Paul "nipped it in the bud" before a physical separation materialized.

I was brought up in the non-instrumental music Church of Christ party. I defected her decades ago in favor of freedom in Jesus. I affirm that, as a religious party, this Church generates division and separation. Her 130-year history confirms this affirmation. She accuses all other churches of sectarianism, but announces to the world that she is non-sectarian and "non-denominational." Well, her ex-children who are free know better.

If time permits, I may add additional remarks later. Currently, I'm getting my weekly column out to my readers.​

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, these additional remarks may, hopefully, help a little. It is not necessary to leave the ones we love to abandon the party spirit. The party spirit is, essentially, a separatist and divisive attitude—an attitude that generates division and separation. Religious parties are the end result. We may differ, as did the early believers, but we may not separate into parties or "faithful churches."​

With all respect due you as a creation of God and fellow Christian, I think you should take a very good, self-examining look in the mirror because you, in general, and this op in particular, are at least as guilty as this unidentified fellow believer. True to the "spirit" of Campbell and the ecclesiological practices of the Restoration Movement practice, you routinely post ops critical of the church under the guise, not just auspices, of Church unity. Consider the following point: This op would read much differently, much less divisive if two simple lines had been left out of it: 1) the reference to the fellow believer and 2) the reference to Alexander Campbell. Had the second paragraph said something like, "As long as demonstrate doctrinal biases with/and unyielding attitude, we will remain separated from God’s other children.

I believe I have recommended this book to you previously: Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Life Together." I recommend it because in it Bonhoeffer describes how God's image is born out differently in each of the 8.2 billion people living on the planet today (or nearly 700 million if you wish to limit that to evangelical Protestants ). There is one God. That God is so infinite that He can manifest Himself uniquely in every single human He has ever made. We're like snowflakes: no two alike . In other words, God made enormous diversity and, in Christ, that same enormous diversity is placed under the headship of His Son. If read "casting aside every partisan shackle," as the op puts it reading that book will change you Christianity in profound and enduring ways. You are, in a sense, stuck in the early 1800s with Campbellite thinking that hasn't yet broken free of the "separatist" versus anti-separatist mindset.

Consider for another minute what is hiding within the words quoted from Campbell. “I was once so strong a separatist I would neither pray nor sing with others unless they were as perfect as I knew myself to be.... If I had persisted in this most unpopular course, there could never be a congregation of saints on earth.” Campbell is implying there were no saints on earth prior to his abandoning his own separatism! I'm overjoyed he managed to shed his separatism. I hope he then started working on his hubris.

One of the most dysfunctional, unscriptural, and divisive beliefs of the Restoration movement was its redefining ecclesiology. I'll bet they didn't teach that in the house churches you've attended because it's not commonly shared among any of the Restoration Movement sects. At the rock bottom foundation of all the Restoration Movement sects are the beliefs 1) The Church is corrupted, and 2) "Our" sect has the correct true view and practice of the Church, so 3) you must come join us if you wish to be a true Christian. The alternative is there is only one Church, true or otherwise, and that Church is the body of believers in Christ, and the body of Christ is impeccable. Any corruption that exists within the body is due to the imperfect nature of its members (other than Christ). Every single one of the sects that arose in the eighteen hundreds' Restoration movement made that same fatal mistake. Most of them also coupled the mucked-up ecclesiology with a mucked up apocalyptic modern futurism. = if you don't come join our way of seeing and doing things then you won't survive the soon-coming return of Christ . ALL who made that coupling were wrong. They proved themselves the exact opposite of the first century Church . In other words, every single one of them appealed to a fallacious appeal to purity and every single one of them divided themselves from the existing Church and each other.

That is the indisputable history of the Restoration Movement (or at least an indisputable part of that history). Something more than Campbell must be read.

As far as the unity of the early Church goes during its first two centuries, you might want to do some reading about that, too, because at least two of the ECFs were deemed heretics and at least one of them was banished from his city and stripped of his position , and centuries later deemed as a heretic. I'm not talking about guys like Marcion or Arius. I'm talking about guys like Tertulian, Origen, John Chrysostom, and Jerome. The idea the first few centuries were warm, fuzzy and wholly united is utter falsehood.


I gotta go. My guests have arrived. I'll take up the rest of Post 8 later, but for now, I'll say there was physical separation as a consequence of the affiliations described in 1 Corinthians!

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Josheb, please see today's Reformation Rumblings column.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, please see today's Reformation Rumblings column.

Done. There's not a single word in that article I did not already know, most of it is not in dispute. There are, however, a handful of factual errors in that post that should be corrected. More importantly, the article is a prime example of the kind of disunity you say you want to extinguish! There can be no unity over falsehoods. That is axiomatic. The first sentence of the article is incorrect! Every Jewish male was thoroughly educated in Tanakh. Every Jewish male between ages 10 to 14 was educated in scripture memorization, the oral traditions, and debate. Furthermore, at least two of the apostles, Paul and John, were clergy and Paul (being a Pharisee) was one of the most theologically educated men of his day. The men at Pentecost and the Areopagus were all likely to be education and well-to-do men. Campbell was an educated man. Yes, it is true the gospel was received by the poor and uneducated, and the lower classes made up a majority of the Church's numbers but that is true of any religion at that time simply because there was no middle class and the poor far outnumbered the rich.


More importantly, this is a discussion board. This particular board in which we are currently traded posts is the Systematic Theology board, and this board exists in the Christ Centered Community Forum of the Christ Centered Apologetics Ministry. This forum was established as a place where its members could learn to assert and defend the gospel and their respective viewpoints. That is the purpose of the forum.

That article does nothing to advance the discussion here in this forum. It is an appeal to one's own authority. Where did we find Paul say, "Please refer to my letter written to X"? The request to read that article is hugely antithetical to a return to early church practices! If actual discussion was engaged more often then mistakes like the ones listed above would not exist and Reformation Rumblings would be much more accurate and potentially more influential. Right now, as it stands, a modicum of misinformation is distributed. The mistaken information is never going to be recognized it's not discussed. If mistakes are never realized, then they will not be corrected.

Has the prospect that the demand for non-denominational unity has become an idol ever been considered?

Idolatry is something every Christian must address in his/her own life. For some it's knowledge, others its anger, or wealth, or popularity, or one spiritual discipline over another. The list of potential idols is endless. A demand for unity, or a demand for reform can be just as big an idol as any totem. A lot of people say, "I don't want to argue," as an avoidant device. A lot of people say that because the differences between a healthy conversation about differences and a vitriolic debate aren't known. Some say it because they truly believe they know more than everyone else, they lack all interest in learning and expect everyone to bow to the information in their posts without the slightest bit of disagreement.

Internet discussion boards teach his how to discuss our difference and separate healthy division from unhealthy division and divisiveness.

My point is that I have broached a handful of concerns regarding this op and none of them are being discussed with any substance.

• Post 2 is mainly about the premise you are the measure of what is good and correct, at the expense of either whole scripture or sound doctrine.
• Post is about the irony, and potential hypocrisy, of citing Campbell because, in the end, Campbell's work was contrary to his stated goal. He set out to establish an orthodox anti-denominational non-denominationalism but ended up adding to the denominational and sectarian divisions in the Church. This is one of the reasons I exhort some prayerful consideration of the problem of idolatry because the appeal is not "I follow Christ," but "I follow Campbell." This forum is filled with "I follow Calvin," or "I follow Berkouwer," or "I follow Ice." is not much different from, "I follow Campbell." It's curiously inconsistent with a stated intent to unite. The practical result is division.
• Post 3 is also about the fact the NT-era Church did, in fact, experience sectarian divisions and divisiveness, and the post-NT Church experienced that same AND those divisions were vehicles for formalizing teaching and practice. It's paradoxical: division brought about unity and orthodoxy. Post 3 is also about the facts of modern history and the truth about Alexander Campbell's part in the added division of the Church the Restoration Movement birthed. The sectarian divisions that arose out of the Restoration Movement made the Reformation look sophomoric.
• Post 4 is a single simple question about Campbell regarding the fact Campbell never expressed regret over adding one more denomination to an already denominationally burdened and divided Church.
• Post 5 is about the prospect doctrinal adherence is often scripturally commended practice and not an inherently dividing matter, and the problem of utopianism or idealism.
• Post 7 is mainly about the ever-present irony existing any time anyone appeals to any Restoration Movement leader because they were all highly educated men (Campbell had a university education). The idea "it" does not take a biblical scholar to understand an op written by an acolyte of a university educated man is dripping with irony.
• Post 9 is about the fact Post 8 is not helpful but is thought to be so. Post 9 broaches the matter of diversity that exists by God's own hand, according to God's own design. Most modern evangelical congregations have both large group meetings and house gatherings! Among that vast diversity are people like Bonhoeffer who were also very much concerned with denominational/sectarian division. Bonhoeffer was educated in the German Universities and trained in the Lutheran denomination (which never would have existed had the RCC not persecuted and tried to kill all the Reformers). He had a life-altering experience when he came to America and attending the liberal Union Theological Seminary. He returned to Germany to find it run by the NAZIs and the Lutheran denomination politically divided. The book "Life Together" was written during the time he was living underground with other persecuted Christians. The book is very, very, very, very much about the matters you write about. I mean no offense, but the book is a gazillion times better than your ops. One of the reasons it's much better is because Bonhoeffer is not tied down to his own denominationalism. He was living what you write about. Among the many things he discovered is that utopianism kills and idealism is a lie from the pit of hell. Did you know there was a cult called The Local Church? It was run by a guy named Witness Lee, and they taught there is only one church in any city. He, like Campbell a century earlier, compounded the problem.

In other words, several points for discussion have been broached. Most of them have been broached before and responses like Posts 6, 8, and 10 are typical.
Mod edit: Off topic content removed.

 

[Josheb]

Shorter version of the previous post: There are a handful of valid op-relevant points that we could be discussing and discussing respectfully with good will but that is not happening. In other words, non-denominational, non-sectarian unity is not being practiced, and I am not the one taking a sectarian stance in this thread. What the op is preaching is not being practiced!

1. Be truthful, honest, forthcoming, and authentic when writing about very real problems in the denominationally divided Church.
2. Rely on accurately rendered whole scripture and not denominationally divisive individuals who did not actually practice what they preached (like Campbell).
3. Separate division from dividedness and divisiveness. Let whole scripture be the measure in both content and practice. Use the discussion board to refine and improve your case.
4. Doctrine is not the problem. Most Church doctrine unites the denominations. Denominational doctrine unites people of like mind. When doctrines fall within the pale of orthodoxy, the problem with denominational doctrines is the lack of goodwill. When they do not fall within the pale of orthodoxy they should be refuted with well rendered whole scripture, not appeals to people like Campbell, Mingdao, Wallis, Viola, Barna, etc.
5. Church doctrine improves as leaders prayerfully debate matters, relying on the Holy Spirit. It happened in the NT-era Church, it happened in the post-NT era Church, and that process continues today and would likely be much more successful if there were progeny of the Restoration Movement constantly teaching bad ecclesiology. Be part of the solution, not the problem.
6. Consider the prospect diversity can be a good, functional, God-given thing.
7. Diversify your sources because the matter of intra-Church division has been around since the New Testament. Alexander Campbel was not the first, nor the last to address the problem, but he was among the most dysfunctional simply because he paradoxically ended up adding a new denomination to the mix, not uniting the Church. I recommend starting with Bonhoeffer but if his Lutheranism causes you concern I can make other recommendations.
8. The truth about non-denominationalism is that it is just another denomination. It's the anti-denomination denomination.
9. Idealism, Utopianism, and a demand for unity can be an idol.

Pick one and discuss it meaningfully and with substance.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, you noted, among other items, "The mistaken information is never going to be recognized [if] it's not discussed. If mistakes are never realized, then they will not be corrected."

​

​

​

Mod edit: Off topic and contentious content removed



It appears you've chosen to discuss my comment, "The mistaken information is never going to be recognized [if] it's not discussed. If mistakes are never realized, then they will not be corrected." If that is the case then let's take it small and orderly. Here is one single, solitary question that is intentionally worded in a way that it can be answered with a simple, "yes," or an equally simple and succinct, "no."

Can factual errors unite Christians?

Example: If I said, "Augustine of Hippo was born in the 15th century," would that be something upon which we can and should build affirmative non-denominational unity. Wouldn't we want to correct the error in that statement (Augustine was born in the 4th century, not the 15th) and garner unity on the truth?

I cannot think of a shorter post that takes less time that a two-letter post.



Can factual errors unite Christians?

 

[Josheb]

​

Off topic content deleted by Mod.

I was quoted saying, "The mistaken information is never going to be recognized [if] it's not discussed. If mistakes are never realized, then they will not be corrected." and I think that as good a place to start as any. I asked a single, simple question:

Can factual errors unite Christians?