One difference between God's model and a modern secular panel discussion (as well as most Sunday School discussions) is that any member can introduce any new topic of discussion as he is inspired, v. 29-30. This is a bit like the provision in Robert's Rules of Order that any member can propose that the group consider any "new business".

Even though the Bible says "all" should participate, verse 30 indicates it is not the moderator's duty to say "Well, Suzie, you haven't said anything yet. Wouldn't you like to contribute something now?" Rather, it is the Spirit who directs people to speak, and who decides when. The duty of the moderator is to only make sure Suzie is allowed to speak when she is ready. Verse 30 also indicates the way to let the group know you have something to say is to stand up. It further implies that the speaker may continue freely as long as no one is standing; but when someone stands, he needs to wrap up his point and allow a response.

2 John 9-11 says "9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in [Gr: does not live by] the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any [Gr: the sort of people described earlier] unto you, and bring [Gr: reproduce in their lives] not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

In other words, this warning is not about people from other churches who intellectually believe differently. It is not about people who don't intellectually agree with OUR doctrines. It is about the people in our own church who may very well intellectually agree with us, but who don't LIVE by Jesus' Commandments, and who do not reproduce Jesus' teachings in their lives.

But who was mentioned earlier, vs. 10, that we should shun? Shall we shun unbelievers because they do not live by Jesus' commandments? But 1 Corinthians 14:24 specifically invites unbelievers into our churches!

Verse 7 began the train of thought continued through verse 10. "7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Verse 7 identifies deceivers by their words. Verse 8 warns us to be careful, not only of deceivers, but of becoming like them. Verse 9 identifies deceivers by how they live, which is also a warning to us to watch how we live. Verse 10 tells us to shun them.

"Deceivers" are not people with sincerely held differences of opinion. They are people who know better, but who lie to us. In fact, they are likely to tell us they agree with our doctrines! To put this more clearly: people who openly disagree with our doctrines make the poorest "deceivers".

Sincerely held differences of opinion about doctrine were not a Biblical grounds for separation, because, I presume, it was assumed differences of opinion were correctable through the Bible discussion described in 1 Corinthians 14. It was assumed the interaction of ideas in an assembly could resolve most disagreements, and keep the rest in Romans 14 perspective.

Proverbs 6:16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: ...19 he that soweth discord among brethren.

In our nation, if one dictator controls businesses, chooses careers for workers, and sets wages, individuals are denied both the incentive and the opportunity to be creative and to contribute their best to society. The economy goes down the toilet, as we see occurs without exception. Who ever heard of a prosperous dictatorship?

Let's look at what seem like exceptions. China is doing pretty well today, if you measure only cash flow. Slave labor is turning a tidy profit for its military. And yet with all its cash, it has to acquire its technology either by buying it, stealing it (through its spies), or by bribing American presidents. It lacks the creativity to invent it.

The South did pretty well with slavery, if you counted only cash flow. Its slaves picked a lot of cotton, for which there was need in the North and overseas. But so little creativity was possible, that the South had to import most of its technology from the North. Slaves were neither rewarded for inventing, nor even permitted, generally speaking, to sit around and make things.

Sometimes Eli Whitney, who invented the cotton gin (which separated the seeds out of the cotton, fifty times faster than could be done by hand) is mistakenly cited as the exception. But Eli Whitney was a rich white man! Sometimes George Washington Carver is cited as an exception, but he was born the final year of the civil war and died in 1943! He was an Iowa State professor who invented many uses for peanuts, sweet potatoes, and other crops which the South could grow instead of just cotton.

I wonder if anyone would suggest Hitler was an exception? But his regime was too short to give his economics a good test, especially when he spent his short years stealing, first from Jews, then from France, Poland, and the slavs which he invaded and plundered.

(Galatians 4:24-25 explains the educational value of laws. Moses' laws were the example then, but today most Americans assume our secular laws actually define right and wrong, so that God wants us to obey them. The laws we allow thus influence much behavior, from pornography to abortion, which has an effect on eternal destinies.

Not that political involvement in New Testament times was like what we see today, where Christians do not trumpet their rationale for their positions, which they discern from Scripture. When Jesus and the apostles interacted with political leaders, it was to scrutinize human lawmaking by the beacon of God's Word! Of course today's Pharisees will tell you to go ahead and get involved, but just don't quote Scripture during political debate where it isn't appropriate and it will only "offend" people, Acts 4. As if to say "OK you can debate with us, if you just follow the rules. Rule #1: you must agree that God has nothing definitive to say about any issue we talk about. OK? Now we can let you talk."

America began through the full operation of the Gift of Governments, and America will be restored to her original holy calling when that Gift (not separated from the other Gifts) is again honored. Everybody knew, when America was young, that an important duty of Christians is to oppose Satan's advance on the political fronts.

An example of a ministry that falls under both "helps" and "governments" is help for victims of government bureaucracy, Proverbs 24:11-12. All government agencies enact "Administrative Rules", never voted upon by any elected body, yet whose violation can cost you money, property, business, or your children (depending on the agency). Their lawyers have big budgets, and not everybody they target is guilty.

"Tolerance" v. Discipline: Fellowship Attitudes

"Let anyone contribute to a discussion, and you will have anarchy. Especially when they come from different denominations! Doesn't the Bible say to 'separate yourselves' from people who don't agree with you?"

Many verses are assumed to condemn "tolerance", justify church splits, and require church discipline (excommunication) over doctrinal differences. But what if those verses were indeed written for a fellowship built around discussion, not a format without interaction? Have we been forcing square pegs into round holes? If we round our pegs, (our interpretations of those verses,) might they better answer our questions?

For example, the traditional reason we are careful who we "associate" with is so we can "endorse" those we "agree" with. But what if the Biblical purpose for coming together is to correct misunderstandings which prevent our serving God together? What if we shouldn't be afraid of theological differences, but should expect them? Just as a garbage collector sees garbage as his job; not that he exactly loves it. He appreciates his job, if not the garbage.

What if the Biblical reason for excommunication is not to distance ourselves from people we don't agree with, but to control disruptions? That may not occur to people listening to pulpit lectures, which are almost impossible to disrupt. But in a discussion, even sincerely held beliefs can cause commotion. (But we should expect real disruption to occur even more rarely, where there is the Spirit of Christ, than in secular meetings where only once in a blue moon does a "Sgt. At Arms" need to escort anybody out.)

Notice especially that this verse, which in the past has been used not only to split churches but to burn people at the stake because they were "hereticks", actually says it is not any particular teaching which must be separated from, but divisiveness -- usually less a matter of intellectual understanding than an attitude.

Intellectual misunderstanding happens to all of us, and before we judge another for how long it is taking him to correct his errors, we should remember how long it has been known to take us. Nevertheless there can come a point where it becomes clear that he really knows better but is motivated to blind himself to the evidence. Even here we need to be as tolerant of others as we desire God to be with us. But when someone is troubling the church with erroneous notions, and we know that he knows better, that may be the time to dust off Matthew 18.

That seems to be the scenario in Titus 1:10-16. The "doctrine" of circumcision is associated with lying, self serving, divisive personalities, just as today we might associate the doctrine of "choice" (to commit abortion) with such personalities. But it is the lying, the self-serving divisiveness, which Paul orders stopped.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (NIV: 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.)

In is natural for Bible students to notice new things in the Bible and get ideas which are like gold ore, unrefined and unpolished, with only a speck of gold in an ounce of dirt. When someone is wrong but he really hungers for the truth, that is the kind of person we want in our fellowship, so he can learn from us, and we from him.

Toleration of error is not a virtue. Error is a thing to be uprooted to the extent that wisdom and time allow. That does not mean we should snub people as soon as they disagree with us, or cause them to question whether God will accept them. Romans 14 specifically warns us not to tell "the brother weak in the faith" that unless he repents of his doctrines he will go to hell ("receive him not to doubtful disputations") (NIV: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."). "Let everyone be persuaded in his own mind", (NIV: "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind") Paul orders, even about theological disputes among the most divisive of all time (what to eat, and which day to worship): get along, don't stop reasoning, and hold out hope!

(For detailed analysis of these issues, see "Who Owns the Pulpit?" at www.panews.org. This "Revival" flier is written by Dave Leach, and published by The Partnership Machine, Inc., 137 E. Leach, Des Moines Iowa 50315. 515/244-3711w, 256-0637h. uncle-ed@ia-omni.com)

If you excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with you, you have no 'oneness'. But if, in order to achieve 'oneness', you 'tolerate' any input without scrutiny, you have no discipline. Of course, if you allow any input with scrutiny, that makes all the difference. A modern "panel discussion" provides orderly interchange of ideas even on political topics, where participants have a lot less in common than Christians coming together across mere denominational barriers.

Membership Requirements

Everyone who is a member of Heaven (or, who is "going to Heaven"), and who lives in Des Moines, is a member of the Church at Des Moines, according to God. The New Testament churches were simply the assembly of all the Christians in a given city, even before there was any human organizational structure, not to mention physical building.

The Church of Des Moines is not "our" church. It is God's Church. God admits its members. All we humans can do is discern whom God has admitted, and pray God will protect others from deficiencies in our discernment.

Any member of God's "Church at Des Moines is automatically a Member of The Partnership Machine, Inc. Those who are directly involved with The Partnership Machine are distinguisned as Participants; Participants may subscribe to various services, such as a Newsletter or Email bulletin.

Surely every pastor is painfully aware of today's disunity, but how do we restore Biblical unity without welcoming heresy? Well, one way many churches have found, is to cooperate in Biblical functions which divided Christians can less effectively perform. Such as food pantries and homeless shelters, which fit the 1 Corinthians 12 category of "the Gift of Helps". There may be greater works possible through this sort of cooperation.

But what was the nature of New Testament unity? Was it unanimous acceptance of a limited number of conclusions about spiritual things -- in other words, doctrines? Or could "interaction" between people, each expressing their convictions which they believe God has given them to share, even though new ideas are coming forth all the time which challenge old ones, be the "One Spirit" urged upon us by Paul? Could the "unity" he wants for us not be intellectual sameness, but the spirit of subjection to the scrutiny of one another? Or, Fellowship? Could willingness to interact with each other, even with those who disagree with us on some intellectual point, be a greater sign of love than refusal to even associate with one another? Could it be the Body of Christ was never meant by God to require every member to be, intellectually, "the eye" (1 Cor 12:16)? Could it be that ideas which seem as different as the members of our bodies have the capacity, through love, of interacting together to form One Mind?
 

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)