Where do you draw the line?

In this age of increasing deception and compromise, I am wondering where one should draw the line when it comes to fellowshipping with people who do not hold exactly the same views as me. I don't think I am alone in wondering this and so I want to explore the issue in this post, and am taking the unusual step of opening it for comments so that others can contribute to the discussion if they wish.

As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.

If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.

What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!

One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.

Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)

Dog in the manger

As I said in an earlier post, a denomination is not a denomination when members do not feel that they can freely worship in all churches belonging to that denomination. That is certainly the case now with the Church of Scotland, given that some members still hold to the Bible as being not only the Word of God but our rule for living, while others have decided that they know better than the Bible and can dispense with some (all?) of its teachings. The CofS is now too broad a church to continue in its present form, which is why some congregations and ministers have already left and others are considering doing so. It would be good if the split could happen amicably however it would seem that 121 (George Street - HQ of the CofS) is determined to make it as difficult as possible. They are desperate to hold on to church buildings and manses, with the result that they are going to end up with a lot of empty buildings with no congregations or ministers and no money for the upkeep of said buildings. We have already seen the transformation of empty churches in Edinburgh into pubs and clubs and carpet warehouses over the years. Sadly, it seems that we are going to see a lot more of the same if the CofS continues with its present dog-in-the-manger attitude. It will be a pretty poor witness if Gilcomston South in Aberdeen ends up turning into a pub through the intransigence and pettiness of 121. And does 121 really think that they are going to be able to keep High Hilton going now that the minister, associate minister and a large part of the congregation have left?

The church is the people, not the building, and God will build His church in Scotland regardless of what the leadership of the CofS does, however they will still have to answer for their actions.

'Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows' Galations 6:7 (NIV)

When is a Denomination not a Denomination?

When the members of that denomination cannot worship in some of the churches ostensibly belonging to the same denomination because of fundamental differences regarding the nature of worship. I refer of course to the current situation in the Free Church of Scotland. Much was made at the time of the vote on worship last year about the preservation of unity in the face of major differences, however the upshot is that some members now cannot worship happily in all Free Churches. And surely that is the whole point of a denomination – that a member can go to another church in the same denomination knowing that their beliefs and style of worship will be very similar to those in his home church. Since that is no longer the case, would it not be better for the Free Church to admit it and split amicably?