The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi Steve,

In your article, Section IV, you wrote:

B. Commitment to a group of Christians in one congregation in a way that preempts commitment to the entire church outside that congregation is wrongheaded and is described by Paul as infantile and carnal (I Cor.3:2-4).

You make a good point idealistically, but practically speaking I can not see how this could work. Let us consider a person new to a particular town. The person is gifted as a teacher of God's word, but is not notorious for this ability as you are. The person attends a particular church for awhile, participating in bible studies or group discussions, and is recognized soon enough for having the gift of teaching and is asked to serve as a teacher. Now if he believes he must endeavor to serve equally in all local congregations (there are about thirty churches in the town where we attend church, not counting Roman Catholic, LDS,etc.) how would he go about this? Go from church to church and ask to teach? Send out flyers advertising himself? That seems unworkable to me.

I think we both agree that Christian unity is based on essentials, and agreement is not necessary on many of the finer points of doctrine. Having said that, the leadership of the congregation has an obligation to watch out for the flock, and must take at least some care regarding what is taught:

2 John 1:9-11 (New King James Version)
9. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11. for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

So if a Bob George clone shows up unawares and makes known his ability and desire to expound on the scriptures, what then? Let him teach the flock that Jesus' words are not to be obeyed? The church service would be ruined for me, and most others I am sure. Anger and worship don't mesh very well.

I do believe that the equal commitment to all can be demonstrated by our love for them and recognition of them as our brothers and sisters in Christ, and working co-operatively with them wherever possibile. The church we attend, and my wife and I personally, are involved with a number of other churches in this county through Love INC (Love in the Name of Christ), an organization that helps people with all sorts of needs.

God bless, Homer

Hi Steve,

I thought of another question regarding your statement quoted in my previous post:

B. Commitment to a group of Christians in one congregation in a way that preempts commitment to the entire church outside that congregation is wrongheaded and is described by Paul as infantile and carnal (I Cor.3:2-4).

In a large city a few miles south of us, there are some very liberal "mainline" churches. The city is very liberal. These churches promote homosexual relationships (celebrate and honor them, they say). These churches also support abortion. Should our "commitment" to them be the same as all other Christian congregations? Are they to be considered Christian? When you refer to "the entire church outside", are you referring to congregations or individual Christians?

As far as other congregations, its my guess we would all draw lines somewhere as to who we could work with cooperatively, and those we would not.

B. Commitment to a group of Christians in one congregation in a way that preempts commitment to the entire church outside that congregation is wrongheaded and is described by Paul as infantile and carnal (I Cor.3:2-4).

I know I should not spout off without reading and digesting Steve's essay ... but here goes anyway.

How do I express "commitment to the entire church?" I think I understand commitment to my Savior. (Not to say that I do it well.) I think I understand commitment to other Christians whose names I know and faces I see. (Not to say that I always do right by them either.) But what would my commitment to the millions of Christians I will never have the opportunity to meet mean?

Does my being regularly involved in the spirtual lives of a few dozen Christians that I know personally mean that I am somehow not doing the right thing in regard to the ten thousand or so other Christians in my hometown whom I do not know? I am not rejecting them, but I'm only one guy and there are only so many hours in a day.

What Paul described as infantile was claiming "I follow Paul" or "I follow Appolos." How does that relate to one living most of one's spiritual life in the context of a single congregation?

Homer,

We are not required (nor permitted) to associate with those who are subjected to church discipline. Since not all Christians today are in the same organization, we as individuals must recognize those whose behavior would justly require disfellowshipping if such primitive circumstances were to be present. There are whole congregations today, no doubt, who would be subject to discipline were Jesus or Paul on the scene to address them.

SamIam,

Commitment to the whole body of Christ does not involve active involvement in every Christian's life—neither globally, locally, nor congregationally. I use the word commitment, in this context, to mean fundamental identification. I attend a group that has no more than 25 participants, yet I am not equally involved in each of their lives. Nor can I be. My commitment is to the whole body of Christ, which means that whatever gifts God may have given me are available to any Christian who can be benefited by them, regardless whether he/she attends my fellowship, or even lives in my country.

Steve,

It appears the difference between you and me is that whatever gifts I might have are simply not in demand apart from the little country church I attend.

Maybe I need to get out more.