What really is "dividing the body of Christ"??

[com7fy8]

Denominations are already scripturally divided and we should duke it out more often so we can come together in unity of belief instead of attempting to pacify the debate with a chastisement of "dividing the body of Christ" which is only preventing us from actually being whole and keeping us divided with "you interpret it this way, I interpret it this way" and leaving it in that divided state. That's not helping, thats encouraging continued true division.

"Denominations are already scripturally divided" > the people involved in each case can be different in why they are divided. More cultic people can be in one division. In another, you could have one group who was right to get away from the main group. And individuals who are really saved will mature to get wise to their denomination, but they might stay in order to minister to others and share with others who have grown wiser in Jesus. And their denomination can be their fishing hole.

"we should duke it out more often" > well, this could be an expression of *yur* personality, couldn't it? However, in any case, my impression of you is that you care and make an effort to help people. "That means more than what you might say."

I offer 1 Peter 3:1-4 about how "without a word" disobedient ones can be won by the *example* of someone who is truly correct . . . not only in doctrine but in being submissive to God and gentle and humble. After all, our main goal is to become like Jesus and to love like Jesus > I would like to hear how much a lot of divisive beliefs help people to become conformed to the image of Christ.

So, I would be prayerfully careful about how much a debate has power to take over our attention. It could be a decoy for our attention.

"leaving it in a divided state" > it depends on who we are talking about. There are combative people who are not about making sense with you. It will never end, in such a case, unless with your prayer and example God changes the person deeply.

There are people who have made idols of whoever brought them to believe they have salvation. And so, no way are they going to admit that their idol pastor or other idol mentor is wrong . . . on anything, even. For some, their whole group is an idol, above question, basically; so questioning them can be "questionable" . . . especially if they claim their way is better than all the rest. But deeply . . . prayer and example can work.

Often, you can see really divisive people comparing themselves to . . . other people . . . not comparing themselves with Jesus > 2 Corinthians 10:12 >

"For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." (2 Corinthians 10:12)

Also, you want to make sure you correctly understand what an individual believes. It is possible the person's own understanding of a denomination's belief is not what all in the denomination understand.

For one example, free will can be understood in more than one way. For some, it can mean a person is free to lose one's salvation; for another, it means you made the choice and so it is guaranteed never to fail. And there is free will that makes God a puppet of one's choices, and there is free will which works only after Jesus has freed the person so the person is capable of freely choosing and doing what is good. And there is free will that means God's loves you and therefore He does not force you, plus this is our example of how we must not try to control and pressure others, since God desires cheerful choosing of what is good. Within one denomination, it is possible to find members with more than one idea of the denomination's idea, is what I mean.

So, I like to get to know someone so I can see what the person's beliefs therefore have the person doing and becoming and ministering. Is the person ministering God's own grace to make me more Christlike and genuinely loving, or is the person giving me homework?

 

[Fervent]

A lot of division comes about because of systematic theology and beliefs about Scriptural clarity leading to people insisting that their understanding is the Biblical teaching. The usual mix of pride and tribalism rears its ugly head, and rather than taking the time to understand where other people are coming from and how they are getting to their understanding the knee jerk reaction is to "defend the faith" whenever someone dares to think outside of the lockstep of the group.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A lot of division comes about because of systematic theology and beliefs about Scriptural clarity leading to people insisting that their understanding is the Biblical teaching. The usual mix of pride and tribalism rears its ugly head, and rather than taking the time to understand where other people are coming from and how they are getting to their understanding the knee jerk reaction is to "defend the faith" whenever someone dares to think outside of the lockstep of the group.

Those are excellent points for us to think about in this discussion, and it reminds me all the more as to why I attempt to maintain solidarity and to avoid unnecessary debate with all other Traditionally Trinitarian Christians as much as I can.

 

[Fervent]

Those are excellent points for us to think about in this discussion, and it reminds me all the more as to why I attempt to maintain solidarity and to avoid unnecessary debate with all other Traditionally Trinitarian Christians as much as I can.

As I am sure you would agree, a little hermeneutics goes a long way. Too often we jump into trading verses with little actual discussion and exchange, trying to prove each other wrong even if it is damaging to our fellowship. I say this as a participant and an observor.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I am sure you would agree, a little hermeneutics goes a long way. Too often we jump into trading verses with little actual discussion and exchange, trying to prove each other wrong even if it is damaging to our fellowship. I say this as a participant and an observor.

Y'know, with the way the world is, one would think Christians would see the need to unite together for mutual support and encouragement rather than wrangle over certain points of the faith ad infinitum. But I guess I hope for too much.

 

[timothyu]

Y'know, with the way the world is, one would think Christians would see the need to unite together for mutual support and encouragement

They have no personal concept of oppression, many having been taught we are to succeed at the expense of others, free enterprise and all that. Their view of Christianity conforms to the world rather than opposing it. Not entirely their fault, as the religion seeks to conform in order to appear more appealing to especially those who have no desire to be part of a counter-culture. Those who unite in the spirit of the Kingdom, hate the self-serving ways of mankind.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Oftentimes I see people argue scripture because they are passionate about trying to teach others but also they are not educated enough to teach.

So, what ultimately happens, is that the words of the bible are weaponized against the other person to end discussion and both part angry and, you guessed it, divided..

I wonder how things were many years ago when elders and pastors took the time to actually preach about the history of the bible, the context of the verses etc instead of skim the top of it and talk about love and joy in isolation.

Jesus, of course, is love and joy but how and why He got to this point is important to people or there wouldn't be so many arguments about what He does/doesn't mean.

Additionally, there are some people who didn't even know that Paul wasn't introduced to Jesus until after He rose! They believe the comments of Paul to the churches are actually words from Jesus to us?

Education is lacking and I really do blame the churches for this but I do wonder how long this has been the case.

 

[Fervent]

Y'know, with the way the world is, one would think Christians would see the need to unite together for mutual support and encouragement rather than wrangle over certain points of the faith ad infinitum. But I guess I hope for too much.

What gets me is those who take as a point of pride their increasing fracturousness, taking it as if it were a sign that they truly are the sole loyalists to Christ.

 

[RamiC]

So, what ultimately happens, is that the words of the bible are weaponized against the other person to end discussion and both part angry and, you guessed it, divided..

I believe this is a very important point. If we can take it as given that the Bible has been provided for us as a gift and God's Will that we have access to it, is it in our hands so that each can come to know God's love through connection to the Holy Spirit, and so that each can see how our respective denominations and churches relate to it, or is it there so that we can smugly know who else is condemned?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oftentimes I see people argue scripture because they are passionate about trying to teach others but also they are not educated enough to teach.

So, what ultimately happens, is that the words of the bible are weaponized against the other person to end discussion and both part angry and, you guessed it, divided..

I wonder how things were many years ago when elders and pastors took the time to actually preach about the history of the bible, the context of the verses etc instead of skim the top of it and talk about love and joy in isolation.

Jesus, of course, is love and joy but how and why He got to this point is important to people or there wouldn't be so many arguments about what He does/doesn't mean.

Additionally, there are some people who didn't even know that Paul wasn't introduced to Jesus until after He rose! They believe the comments of Paul to the churches are actually words from Jesus to us?

Education is lacking and I really do blame the churches for this but I do wonder how long this has been the case.

You're right about all of that, CC. But I think there's an additional factor in the mix here too: that the "Church" today is plagued by what some scholars have termed, Interpretive Pluralism.

And because there are diverse and contending methods and matrices for understanding the Bible, along with a natural diversity of personality types between each person, there is an ever increasing tension and potential for head-butting among us Christians, head butting that goes beyond even that which Paul and Barnabas experienced between themselves (as seen in Acts 15:36-41............which is sad because I like reading about both Paul and Barnabas. I think both of these men were examples to follow, except for their destructive arguing with each other).

Why did Paul and Barnabas have such a sharp disagreement in Acts 15:39?

 

[JustaPewFiller]

Sooner or later, in many discussions, debates or arguments about Scripture, theology, or doctrine,- interpretation rears its head.

I think every denomination and probably every Christian has interpretations that they stand firmly by and believe to be the *true* interpretations.

Discussion or debate comes about when differing interpretations clash.

Division comes about when one (or neither) side is willing to admit that they are both arguing about interpretations.

As I heard in one lively debate of a Scriptural point where one side was remaining calm and the other side was getting VERY worked up and hostile.
The moderator asked the angry debater to clam down and thanked the other debater for maintaining a level head.
The calm debater said, "Thank you. You see, we are both really just arguing about a differing interpretation. But, only one of us willing to admit that."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sooner or later, in many discussions, debates or arguments about Scripture, theology, or doctrine,- interpretation rears its head.

I think every denomination and probably every Christian has interpretations that they stand firmly by and believe to be the *true* interpretations.

Discussion or debate comes about when differing interpretations clash.

Division comes about when one (or neither) side is willing to admit that they are both arguing about interpretations.

As I heard in one lively debate of a Scriptural point where one side was remaining calm and the other side was getting VERY worked up and hostile.
The moderator asked the angry debater to clam down and thanked the other debater for maintaining a level head.
The calm debater said, "Thank you. You see, we are both really just arguing about a differing interpretation. But, only one of us willing to admit that."

I'll freely admit that I, at times, get a little uppity myself in my exchanges with other Christians. It mainly happens for me, as it always has since the time I first became a Christian and attended a Southern Baptist Church, when I feel I'm being falsely accused of either wrong doing or of ignorance in relation to "how I understand the Bible." Sometimes, I'll apologize if I think it's a reasonable reflection that I've actually overreacted.

But in general, I have limited patience for that sort of situation, especially since I try very hard to offer people grace and latitude by which to hold to their own perspectives on Traditional Trinitarian theology. And I EXPECT the same respect and treatment in return. I don't expect a reprimand and rebuke of my view point right out of the starting gate in a discussion or conversation, especially when I sense that another person doesn't really understand my position but ardently postures as if they do and demands of me that I unilaterally acquiesce to their superior 'spiritual wisdom.'

 

[Delvianna]

I need like a flow chart... If this, then that because that's how I feel when it comes to the idea of debate. In a perfect conversation and what I think is ideal, both parties should be open to being wrong. That means in both understanding and interpretation. No putting your allegiance or what you've been taught for 500 years above the idea that you could be wrong. Now, based off of that, several things happen for me..

1) If the person continually shows arrogance/superiority/patronizing tone/personal attacks/snappy attitude, in several conversations -----> stop the conversation + block them
2) If the person isn't interested/open to the possibility of being wrong and after a long conversation it seems this person is rooted in their interpretation ----> Stop the conversation

I do admit to losing my temper in some discussion/debates I've had but it's 100% because of number 1. I've also had some great discussions/debates that have ended in agreeing to disagree (number 2) and I've walked away going "that was fun!" but it's RARE.

I know beliefs are a touchy subject but we should all be looking to figure out what is true as iron is supposed to sharpen iron but if you're banging people over their head with your sword, that's doing nothing but harm. If you get to a point where you just don't see the other persons argument, fair, but some people get so dang defensive, that they start attacking the person instead of the argument. They start making insinuations against their motives, spiritual state, heart posture or even go so far as insinuate low IQ, just because you don't agree and that's where I draw a line. This goes back to the umbrella of "quarreling" which has no fruit and only sows division because now, I'm going to block that person and make sure I don't run across them again.

So I think it's good to debate, to sharpen iron but I understand there are some other issues at play here but my main point is we should be still having these debates in the correct way, and not try and hinder them or misquote scripture to stop them in the first place.

 

[stevevw]

I have read a fair bit of the early church Fathers like Clement and Ignatius and a bit of Polycarp. Clement is interesting as he was around with the disciples and writes at a time when most of the disciples were gone. Writing to the same churches as Paul 20 or so years later.

One thing that stood out was unity as opposed to division. Even to the point that division itself no matter what caused it was a red flag and the beginnings of sin. That where there was division Christ was not among the people. So it was emphasised that unity was vital.

Paul mentions gossip and getting into squabbles about geneologies ect. Getting into politics over disputes of practice or application. Or interpretations of scriptures. So though it was not necessarily sin it was something that created a culture of division that could further undermine the church.

I can never understand how we ended up with so many denominations. I know the church began as one universal church. At least in the first century and to about mid 2nd century. Ignatius mentions around 110AD that where there is Christ there is the Catholic (universal) church.

But today its almost like some denominations have evolved to become almost different religions. I think modern secular norms have influenced church culture and the culture wars of identity and divided groups has come into the church. Generally there is a culture of division and this is even getting quite hostile between opposing groups.

I think fundementally there is one truth that unites everyone and that is the unity in the body of Christ. Which is based on His sacrifice for us on the cross and His resurrection and the Last Super before he departed. Leaving the church an example to follow through the disciples.

I think if we are true to this simple teaching then we will be of one mind and spirit. For me just as an individual must make themselves right with God and become Christlike. So to the community of Christians guided by the same spirit of the individual but enacted as one community which is the body of Christ.

In other words we first as individuals need to make ourselves right with God and be willing to sacrifice ourselves at the alter as Christ did on the cross. This is the pre requisit because anything less is inviting disunity. You can only be of the one mind if all minds are of Christ.

 

[Delvianna]

I have read a fair bit of the early church Fathers like Clement and Ignatius and a bit of Polycarp. Clement is interesting as he was around with the disciples and writes at a time when most of the disciples were gone. Writing to the same churches as Paul 20 or so years later.

One thing that stood out was unity as opposed to division. Even to the point that division itself no matter what caused it was a red flag and the beginnings of sin. That where there was division Christ was not among the people. So it was emphasised that unity was vital.

Paul mentions gossip and getting into squabbles about geneologies ect. Getting into politics over disputes of practice or application. Or interpretations of scriptures. So though it was not necessarily sin it was something that created a culture of division that could further undermine the church.

I can never understand how we ended up with so many denominations. I know the church began as one universal church. At least in the first century and to about mid 2nd century. Ignatius mentions around 110AD that where there is Christ there is the Catholic (universal) church.

But today its almost like some denominations have evolved to become almost different religions. I think modern secular norms have influenced church culture and the culture wars of identity and divided groups has come into the church. Generally there is a culture of division and this is even getting quite hostile between opposing groups.

I think fundementally there is one truth that unites everyone and that is the unity in the body of Christ. Which is based on His sacrifice for us on the cross and His resurrection and the Last Super before he departed. Leaving the church an example to follow through the disciples.

I think if we are true to this simple teaching then we will be of one mind and spirit. For me just as an individual must make themselves right with God and become Christlike. So to the community of Christians guided by the same spirit of the individual but enacted as one community which is the body of Christ.

In other words we first as individuals need to make ourselves right with God and be willing to sacrifice ourselves at the alter as Christ did on the cross. This is the pre requisit because anything less is inviting disunity. You can only be of the one mind is all minds are of Christ.

Amen! Very true!

 

[timothyu]

I think every denomination and probably every Christian has interpretations that they stand firmly by and believe to be the *true* interpretations.

Too busy with the trees to see the forest. The entire Bible revolves around God's Will ahead of either man's or elohims but nobody is listening, too busy establishing their own territory or looking for a team to support. Add the doctrinal shackles placed on people and free thought goes out the window.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I need like a flow chart... If this, then that because that's how I feel when it comes to the idea of debate. In a perfect conversation and what I think is ideal, both parties should be open to being wrong. That means in both understanding and interpretation. No putting your allegiance or what you've been taught for 500 years above the idea that you could be wrong. Now, based off of that, several things happen for me..

1) If the person continually shows arrogance/superiority/patronizing tone/personal attacks/snappy attitude, in several conversations -----> stop the conversation + block them
2) If the person isn't interested/open to the possibility of being wrong and after a long conversation it seems this person is rooted in their interpretation ----> Stop the conversation

I do admit to losing my temper in some discussion/debates I've had but it's 100% because of number 1. I've also had some great discussions/debates that have ended in agreeing to disagree (number 2) and I've walked away going "that was fun!" but it's RARE.

I know beliefs are a touchy subject but we should all be looking to figure out what is true as iron is supposed to sharpen iron but if you're banging people over their head with your sword, that's doing nothing but harm. If you get to a point where you just don't see the other persons argument, fair, but some people get so dang defensive, that they start attacking the person instead of the argument. They start making insinuations against their motives, spiritual state, heart posture or even go so far as insinuate low IQ, just because you don't agree and that's where I draw a line. This goes back to the umbrella of "quarreling" which has no fruit and only sows division because now, I'm going to block that person and make sure I don't run across them again.

So I think it's good to debate, to sharpen iron but I understand there are some other issues at play here but my main point is we should be still having these debates in the correct way, and not try and hinder them or misquote scripture to stop them in the first place.

As a philosopher, I can generally jive with all you're saying here. In fact, I have little problem with it.