Sunday, September 11, 2005
The One True Church
gracEmail (THE ONE TRUE CHURCH)
Edward Fudge
Sep 11, 2005
Someone recently wrote me an email arguing that only those who belong to his particular denomination are any part of the body of Christ and the universal church of God. How should we respond to such claims, which are made across the "Christian" spectrum?
* * *
For more than a millennium now, different people have equated the true church of Christ with some particular group found in the Yellow Pages (an anachronism, I know, but you get the point). All such attempts will ultimately fail because they are trying to shrink Christ's spiritual body, God's true church, to a tiny segment of the whole -- a segment which, regardless of its identity, sprang into existence far too late to claim such a lofty distinction. The true church of Christ includes every saved person who knows Jesus since Pentecost, and it is far bigger than any Christian denomination or nondenomination regardless of its name, claim or fame. To suppose otherwise is to fall, however.unintentionally, into sectarianism and possibly into heresy as well in the biblical sense.
The world is full of would-be "true churches," each of which has preserved or restored some part of the apostolic message, church detail or personal experience, and all making exclusive claims. Each such group probably is correct in some of its specific doctrines or practices, though such groups usually are not nearly as unique or distinct in those matters as they themselves imagine. And they all are wrong in their exclusive claims.
The time has come to stop playing the "Guess the Right Religious Organization and Win a Trip to Heaven" game. Instead, as repentant sinners who have nothing that God needs and nothing of which we dare to boast, let us put all our trust in the sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Let us entrust ourselves to Jesus Christ -- to learn from him, to follow him and to become like him. When we do that, we can stop quibbling about the name over the church house door. And we then can say with confidence that we are part of the church of which Jesus Christ is the head and the Savior.
___________________
© 2005 by Edward Fudge. Unlimited permission to copy without altering text or profiteering is hereby granted subject to inclusion of this copyright notice. For encouragement and spiritual food any time, visit our multimedia website at http://www.edwardfudge.com/ .
Edward Fudge
Sep 11, 2005
Someone recently wrote me an email arguing that only those who belong to his particular denomination are any part of the body of Christ and the universal church of God. How should we respond to such claims, which are made across the "Christian" spectrum?
* * *
For more than a millennium now, different people have equated the true church of Christ with some particular group found in the Yellow Pages (an anachronism, I know, but you get the point). All such attempts will ultimately fail because they are trying to shrink Christ's spiritual body, God's true church, to a tiny segment of the whole -- a segment which, regardless of its identity, sprang into existence far too late to claim such a lofty distinction. The true church of Christ includes every saved person who knows Jesus since Pentecost, and it is far bigger than any Christian denomination or nondenomination regardless of its name, claim or fame. To suppose otherwise is to fall, however.unintentionally, into sectarianism and possibly into heresy as well in the biblical sense.
The world is full of would-be "true churches," each of which has preserved or restored some part of the apostolic message, church detail or personal experience, and all making exclusive claims. Each such group probably is correct in some of its specific doctrines or practices, though such groups usually are not nearly as unique or distinct in those matters as they themselves imagine. And they all are wrong in their exclusive claims.
The time has come to stop playing the "Guess the Right Religious Organization and Win a Trip to Heaven" game. Instead, as repentant sinners who have nothing that God needs and nothing of which we dare to boast, let us put all our trust in the sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Let us entrust ourselves to Jesus Christ -- to learn from him, to follow him and to become like him. When we do that, we can stop quibbling about the name over the church house door. And we then can say with confidence that we are part of the church of which Jesus Christ is the head and the Savior.
___________________
© 2005 by Edward Fudge. Unlimited permission to copy without altering text or profiteering is hereby granted subject to inclusion of this copyright notice. For encouragement and spiritual food any time, visit our multimedia website at http://www.edwardfudge.com/ .
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting choice of things to post on this day, Press.
But mind you, I haven't read the beneath one yet.
But mind you, I haven't read the beneath one yet.
I think the point of this, and I concur, was that while there is a Church, as in the Body of Christ as a whole, there is no "true "church," as in any particular denomination, or even any local congregation. Its pretty arrogant to make such a claim, I think. But that's just me.
--ER
--ER
ER-
I couldn't agree with ya more. I do find it sad that there are those who truly believe that they have "The Answer" and everyone else is just wrong.
Actually I find it more digusting than sad, but...
Everyone has their own personal "One True Church" and it's between them and God if they choose to go or not.
I couldn't agree with ya more. I do find it sad that there are those who truly believe that they have "The Answer" and everyone else is just wrong.
Actually I find it more digusting than sad, but...
Everyone has their own personal "One True Church" and it's between them and God if they choose to go or not.
"He has given us understanding through His word."
What does this MEAN????? He gives peace that passes understanding.
I take the Bible seriously. I do not, in many cases, take it literally. That's the main reason I rarely -- although I do, sometimes -- quote Scripture to make a point, or to defend one.
I do not worship the Bible. I do not deify it. I do -- do! -- believe it is inspired. But it is crucial to know who wrote what, to whom, and why. I do not believe that "the Bible" -- its 66 books -- was written "to" "me" -- although I believe wisdom can be drawn from it. You call that arrogance. I call it the opposite: humility.
It's Christ I bow to, as "the Word" as the writer of John's Gospel ment so poetically and philosophically. Not "the Word," as in the nickname for the wonderful collection of inspired writings also known as the Bible.
You're talking doctrine, anyway, not theology.
--ER
What does this MEAN????? He gives peace that passes understanding.
I take the Bible seriously. I do not, in many cases, take it literally. That's the main reason I rarely -- although I do, sometimes -- quote Scripture to make a point, or to defend one.
I do not worship the Bible. I do not deify it. I do -- do! -- believe it is inspired. But it is crucial to know who wrote what, to whom, and why. I do not believe that "the Bible" -- its 66 books -- was written "to" "me" -- although I believe wisdom can be drawn from it. You call that arrogance. I call it the opposite: humility.
It's Christ I bow to, as "the Word" as the writer of John's Gospel ment so poetically and philosophically. Not "the Word," as in the nickname for the wonderful collection of inspired writings also known as the Bible.
You're talking doctrine, anyway, not theology.
--ER
Yes, we should probably back away from this discussion.
The followjng alone opens up a discussion of contradiction and uncertainty, within the Bible itself, and there probably is no reconciling us on these points:
"And if you do not bow to the commands of the word of God, then you are in denial of the Word of God."
Spoken like a true fire-breather. :-)
See that? It's a smile!
But, you have to acknowledge that soooo much of what you are absolutely certain about is the very source of the ongoing discussion, going on 2000 years now, about the role of the earthly expression of the mysterious Body of Christ.
Feel free to be certain. But be careful about condemning me -- or, as you might prefer to say, pointing out my condemnation.
For, as you might also say in another context, "There is no condemnation in them that are in Christ Jesus."
What, exactly, the Bible is and is not is a fair discussion to have, and a point on which believers can disagree.
--ER
The followjng alone opens up a discussion of contradiction and uncertainty, within the Bible itself, and there probably is no reconciling us on these points:
"And if you do not bow to the commands of the word of God, then you are in denial of the Word of God."
Spoken like a true fire-breather. :-)
See that? It's a smile!
But, you have to acknowledge that soooo much of what you are absolutely certain about is the very source of the ongoing discussion, going on 2000 years now, about the role of the earthly expression of the mysterious Body of Christ.
Feel free to be certain. But be careful about condemning me -- or, as you might prefer to say, pointing out my condemnation.
For, as you might also say in another context, "There is no condemnation in them that are in Christ Jesus."
What, exactly, the Bible is and is not is a fair discussion to have, and a point on which believers can disagree.
--ER
One thing I have never understood:
The WHOLE POINT Of Christ crucified, and risen, is because we can't earn eternity with God on our own, right? In other words, the whole point is to GET PEOPLE IN.
So then why do churches work so hard to KEEP PEOPLE OUT.
I was sittin' in church Sunday morning. My gaydar isn't that gresat, but I'm pretty sure that two guys behind me were a gay a couple. What better place for them, assuming that homosexuality is behaviorial?? Assuming the Spirit of Christ is present wherever two or three or gathered, what better place for them? On what authority would you seek to keep them out? On whose authority would you deny them the invitation to salvation? By what divining would you judge that one's response to the Gospel is unreal? And, even assuming homosexuality is sinful, why is it any more so than any other sin? Serious questions.
--ER
The WHOLE POINT Of Christ crucified, and risen, is because we can't earn eternity with God on our own, right? In other words, the whole point is to GET PEOPLE IN.
So then why do churches work so hard to KEEP PEOPLE OUT.
I was sittin' in church Sunday morning. My gaydar isn't that gresat, but I'm pretty sure that two guys behind me were a gay a couple. What better place for them, assuming that homosexuality is behaviorial?? Assuming the Spirit of Christ is present wherever two or three or gathered, what better place for them? On what authority would you seek to keep them out? On whose authority would you deny them the invitation to salvation? By what divining would you judge that one's response to the Gospel is unreal? And, even assuming homosexuality is sinful, why is it any more so than any other sin? Serious questions.
--ER
Further, assuming the two guys were not having sex there int eh pew -- and they were not -- why do I *think* they were. You know what I mean. Doesn't that suggest that it is NOT behavioral? And if it is NOT behavioral, but naturally occuring-genetic-pick-your-word, doesn't that suggest that to dismiss homosexuals from the church outright we also would have to bounce those genetically predisposed to alcoholism (drunkenness), obesity and even those whose genes line up just right to make them prone to meanness, i.e., being an asshole for no reason whatever? Where does it stop?
Right here: There. Is. None. Righteous. No. Not. One.
I'm talking to myself here as much as anything, by the way. Feel free to, but do not feel obligated to, respond. I'm having a conversation with uou, not asking for your advice or pastoral care here. :-)
--ER
Right here: There. Is. None. Righteous. No. Not. One.
I'm talking to myself here as much as anything, by the way. Feel free to, but do not feel obligated to, respond. I'm having a conversation with uou, not asking for your advice or pastoral care here. :-)
--ER
Oh, my.
When I wrote:
"Further, assuming the two guys were not having sex there int eh pew -- and they were not -- why do I *think* they were."
What I meant was:
"Further, assuming the two guys were not having sex there in the pew -- and they were not -- why do I *think* they were homosexuals."
--ER
When I wrote:
"Further, assuming the two guys were not having sex there int eh pew -- and they were not -- why do I *think* they were."
What I meant was:
"Further, assuming the two guys were not having sex there in the pew -- and they were not -- why do I *think* they were homosexuals."
--ER
I think I pretty much agree with the above. But I think it is important to be "inclusive" regarding homosexuals in terms of making them welcome in church, and maybe even in accepting their professions of faith -- because unless there is a camera in a bedroom, or wherever, or by their own defiant admission, there is no way of knowing whether a homosexual couple is continuing to practice homosexuality, not even if they cohabitate.
I am less willing to accept homosexuals as candidates for pastorships or other church offices. But my mind is open to it, a little bit, especially if they are not practicing the homosexual lifestyle. And that is one place where I part ways with the church I am attending. On the other hand, there are places where I part ways with every other church I've ever attended. The gay thing seems less important to me than some other things.
--ER
Post a Comment
I am less willing to accept homosexuals as candidates for pastorships or other church offices. But my mind is open to it, a little bit, especially if they are not practicing the homosexual lifestyle. And that is one place where I part ways with the church I am attending. On the other hand, there are places where I part ways with every other church I've ever attended. The gay thing seems less important to me than some other things.
--ER
<< Home
