for denominations to join in one chorus? no. why? b/c we’re human and as such cannot help “ourselves.”- it’s also an outward approach to heart issue.

but what can be done? for each and every believer to move forward, learning the essence of humility, accepting one another and do as HE commanded, love Him, love his Beloved (everyone)- but that comes down to each one’s personal choice. many will. many won’t.

the “essential” is this- him, his blood, his body. are we willing to be part of that fully? if so- only then can unity exist.

Col 3:14 – Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The first essential is love for each other.

PS Was following the blog in Dallas, and now Indianapolis. Truly appreciate how you and your blog. Very provoking. In a good way.

I’m an optimist. If God is really God then we must be moving in the right direction. He’s a lot more patient than we are.

I think your title could use a slight alteration. Honestly I don’t think anything needs to change with Christianity. Christianity is something instituted by God himself and thus it does not need to change. The message is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I think maybe a more apt title would be “What Needs to Change in Christians.” Really, that is the core issue. The faith is perfect as it is, but the people are flawed and thus maybe they need to change.

I get your point there Davin. It is a good one.

In this case I was referring to Christianity as a religious system. Like I said in the post, I tried to look at it from an outsider perspective. What do all these denominations say about our ability to love and unite with one another? You are right that Christianity is a word that represents our faith as a whole, but it is also a word that represents a religious system.

I realize that you don’t mean that Christianity itself needs to change. I was just thinking that the title was slightly different than what your post was trying to convey.

Not to be a hardass but what do you mean by “unity”? Are we talking about a united structure, hermeneutic, theology, view of ordination, structure or a list of key beliefs? When ever I’m confronted from someone who has a concern about the number of denominations/churches I usually tell them my favorite ice cream is peanut butter chocolate. I ask them if they think that it should be the only ice cream made? If not then I believe REAL ice cream people would ONLY like my type of ice cream.

The other illustration/lesson I bring up is a family reunion or holiday dinner. When the WHOLE family is around how ‘united’ are they. Is there a united view of politics? [In my house I wasn't allowed to talk about politics because I picked fights]. What about unity when it came to grandma’s boyfriend, little strange cousin whoever etc….

Here’s my point [about time right]. I am united with a group of believers in my immediate area without any unity in essentials. We have Southern baptists, strong Wesleyans and me, so sanctification and baptisms are NOT united. But we pray, live around, share our stories and even our members without any rancor or jealousy. I was lucky in that I learned this because my coming to faith took place in the ecumenical salad bowl of the Jesus Movement of the 70′s. We got along with others because THE uniting factor was a very simple [sometimes simplistic] love for Jesus and what He’d done for us. And once the Holy Spirit makes you aware of that the rest sort of fades into the woodwork.

Peace
Alan

I tend to agree with Alan here… unfortunately, there are plenty of people who go under the banner of “Christianity” who don’t agree with certain essentials that I hold dear, things like the uniqueness of Christ to provide salvation to humanity. When we don’t agree on this, how do we have unity?

Dave and Alan- I get what you are saying to a certain point. An example of this is that I agree with Sunset’s decision to leave the PCUSA. The problem for me is that our “essentials” list becomes longer than just a few. I think this goes back to being known for more about what we are against than what we are for. Denominations have there place, I don’t doubt that. But clearly, we’ve overdone with denominations.

I think in the future you will see churches employing people from various theological positions because being a church that all thinks the same way just promotes that one way of thinking.

I appreciate your thoughts here, and I definitely do not think you are wrong. I just want to be careful before we start to sound like we having this whole Christianity thing down perfectly. Being in unity, which I see coming from a heartfelt love and genuine care for people no matter the theological position, is something we need to be striving for.

Unity for means comes from Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17. I don’t think Jesus is just talking about the church universal. Unity can manifest itself in a lot of different ways. I’m not trying to view it in just one way here.

I like the way you think. I too see an immense need for change in “American Christianity.” I feel as though that change IS popping up small scale across our states, and I’m stoked to join the movement.

“In the essentials – unity.

In the non essentials – harmony.

In everything – charity.”

Tyler, great stuff! I appreciate the prayers.

IMHO, “unity” is a word mostly devoud of meaning. It’s a feel-good buzz word, but can mean 10 different things to 10 different people. It can also be a fools gold.. is it a good thing to be “united” over something not worth being united over? I am much more interested in persuit of truth, even if that means movng away from commonality, whatever those might be. Christians are united on the divinity of Christ, His resurrection, God’s love for us, and a few other “essentials” to the faith. Beyond that, seek your truth and let that lead you where it will. Don’t be destracted by ethereal concepts like unity. Embrace that where and when it comes about, but keep your eye on the ball.

As for the “outsider” and his/her view of the faith, and why so many stay away, I deviate far from the mainstream view here.. but the fault is rarely w/ us. I know know.. WHAT kind of attitude is THAT! Of COURSE it’s our fault! Come on man, get with it! But alas.. most of us are very caring, deeply concerned about our fellow men and women, and wish nothing but the best for them. The REAL culprit is society itself, the insideous half truths, straw men, agenda driven, nefarious men and women of ill-will, who wish to bring us down. It’s as simple (and complex) as that.. throw in the internet and the proliferation of information.. the ease at which rumor, inuendo, fear and loathing can spread, and it’s easy to see why we’re laying here in our present, shaky state.

The best thing people like you, Tyler, can do, is to not be bullied, stand for truth, have the courage of your convictions, and do battle. That will shine bright and attract people to your.. our cause.

unity is possible for christians when a value for other people is put before our selfish wants……..but putting away pride is a hard thing to do.

This is an interesting thread.
How many ‘brands’ of Christianity were there in the beginning?
Paul asked, “Does the Christ exist divided?”…..he does in today’s world it seems. When Jesus said that “many” would acknowledge him as “Lord” on the day he comes to judge the world; they protest that they have done many things “in his name”, but he stuns them with complete rejection, saying that ‘he never knew them’! (Matthew 7:21-23) How would we like to be on the receiving end of that?
IMHO, there are many who forget the parable of the ‘wheat and the weeds’. True and false Christianity were to ‘grow together’ till the ‘harvest time’, when the difference between the two would become very apparent. (Matthew 13:36-43) …It is not how ‘similar’ all the ‘brands’ of Christianity’ are, but more importantly who are totally different but still fulfilling all the criteria of what it means to be a genuine Christian.
True Christianity would still be there, but lost like a ‘diamond in a pile of broken glass’. The only way to find the real gem is to go back to Jesus and the first Christians and ask, ‘who are doing what they did?’ What does it mean to be a real “footstep follower of Jesus”? Jesus also said that “few” are actually on the right road. (Matthew 7:13,14) Kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?
Food for thought.

Jane

I’d be interested to hear from Alan and his thoughts about absolute moral truth. Your analogy is somewhat false and that is Ice Cream is not Truth, as there is but one Truth, man either doesn’t like the Truth (or its effects) and seeks an alternative or they are in generally ignorant of the Truth altogether. Christianity is based on the sole basis of absolute moral truth. The problem is men most of the time want to subvert that truth by using wrong/poor hermeneutics – the center of all theological disagreements and denominations.

People typically fall into two categories on this issue – either they are being intellectually and hermeneutically honest or they’re not. Jesus makes this very clear when one day he addressed the Pharisee’s about this very issue:

Luke 11:52 “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.”

The “key of knowledge” Jesus speaks of here is the basis of all proper biblical interpretations. The Pharisee’s had taken the bible and had interpreted it on the basis of wrong or false reasoning of God’s character and nature. They had used a theological filter to say God was more concerned with one’s actions, rather than one’s motives (See Prov 8:32-36) – thus impugning his benevolence.

The basis of this interpretation is still how many churches interpret scripture to this day and that is God is a technical God and not a God of relationship (for example – many churches view of penal substitution or their ideas on justification). As a result, Jesus cursed these men for their intentional misuse of their misuse of “right reason”. So next time you wish to discuss unity within the faith start with hermeneutics or the lack thereof. I typically have found that men who are seeking honest and intellectual discussions regarding the bible will have little problem seeking unity – its when we wish to bring our agenda’s or idea’s and then seeking out areas or scriptures that support those notions.

Preston is right, truth is not ice cream, but I was not addressing the issue of absolute moral truth. The extent of the metaphor was to help explain to an untouched person why there is such a myriad of denominations even when they all seemingly believe the same thing.

If you wanted to list the theological [not moral ethical] beliefs I’d start with a reasonable and clear acceptance and adherence to Nicene and Apostles Creed.
My understanding of what this belief entails is not the mamby-pamby, Jesus Seminar, progressive, redefinition of concepts that some flaunt as the meaning. When the Apostles creed says, “On the third day, He rose again from the dead” it’s talking about Jesus being bodily resurrected. It’s that simple.

Where the difference is allowable, excusable, even understandable IMHO is in areas such as “baptism”–believer vs. infant; immersion vs. sprinkling, three dips or one. Preston makes a valid point about the Pharisees reasoning from a false perception of God’s nature but that is in part because that they were devoid of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said would guide us into all truth. Their fault and OURS also occurs even now because we are sinners who, when we are at our very, very, best able to spin God’s Word to make it say what we want it to say.

I am sorry if Preston has experienced a place where a”technical view of God” took precedence over God’s desire for relationship. In my thinking, the “technical” aspect of happened on the cross whether you use verbiage such as penal, substitution, ransom, Christus Victor or expiation to describe it makes a relationship with God possible AND a reality.

That probably won’t answer the issue but it’s the best I can come up with at this time.

Peace,
Alan

Hey Alan – I agree with your points and good ones they are. But I would challenge you a little on your comment:

“……….Pharisees reasoning from a false perception of God’s nature but that is in part because that they were devoid of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said would guide us into all truth.”

This seems to say only those who have the Holy Spirit can have right understanding of scripture. Yet, the OT is chalked full of times where God is telling Israel and Gentiles to get “wisdom” and get “understanding”

1Hear, O sons, the instruction of a father, And give attention that you may gain understanding… 5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth. 6″Do not forsake her, and she will guard you; Love her, and she will watch over you. 7″The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, get understanding.
Proverbs 4:1,5-7

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

If the Pharisee’s required “something” (ie. Holy Spirit) in order to obtain proper understanding or wisdom of God then have an excuse nor are they guilty. Clearly all men are very much capable of having right reason and all men are apparent of God’s benevolence (through nature and their inner consciousness). The issue is does one have the desire for understanding. The Holy Spirit does not necessarily gives us our ability, but will teach us and guide us to Truth – we have to accept it (John 14:26).

For me this is the basis of theological agreement – and that is are people willing to humble themselves and learn of God, or are they simply holding onto pet doctrines or ideas (Tyler’s mentioning of the “essentials”) or are they willing to let go of those ideas and allow them to be fully used of God.