Why WE BELIEVE Should be Canned and, if Anything, Replaced with WE DO
The essence of the Christian life is, well, life.
Lifestyle.
Actions.
Deeds.
Works.
Doing.
According to the Word, those things come first for the Christian.
"I know your deeds." -- Jesus
"By their fruit you will recognize them." -- Jesus
Matthew and Mark say that, from the beginning, the core of the message of Jesus was the call to repent--to change the way you live.
When Jesus called disciples, His invitation was to act. He said, "Come, follow me...."
Truly what a person believes is of eternal value. Paul was crystal clear with the Corinthians that it was through belief in the gospel he proclaimed that they were saved. Nevertheless, the Word teaches that orthodoxy--right belief--is a fruit produced from orthopraxy--right practice.
For that reason, it is the first task of people called to leadership in the Body of Christ to be concerned with what the people they lead do, not what they believe.
Nowhere is this truth presented with greater clarity than in Ephesians 4:11f.
As the New NIV puts it, "So Christ Himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the [shepherds] and teachers to..."
To do what?
Teach proper theology?
To guide proper belief?
To catchize a Creed?
To keep God's people from being blown back and forth by every wind of teaching?
No.
Paul says that Christ gave those leaders "...to equip God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up..." (Eph. 4:12)
Then, Paul says, after the equiping of God's people for works of service, "we (will) all reach unity in the faith..."
"Unity...in...the...faith."
Isn't unity in the faith the goal of a Doctrinal Statement?
The Word teaches that unity in the faith is achieved when APESTs equip people to put their faith into action, doing works of service.
Have you ever wondered by Creeds and Statements of Faith or Doctirnal Statements are not to be found in the Word and yet believers were able to be true to the gospel?
From what I see in the Word, early Christian leaders knew that we don't achieve unity in the faith by writing down beliefs. They sought to reach unity in the faith by training people to possess a living faith, i.e., to do the works God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph 2:10)
The reality in the ministry in which I participate is that we began to achieve spiritual maturity when we began to live out the New Testament teaching that our "spiritual act of worship" is to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. (Rom. 12:1-2)
There is something deeply spiritual about the offering of one's body as a living sacrifice in community with other Jesus followers. To do so brings the blessing of the Spirit. One fruit of that blessing is--exactly as the Word says--unity in the faith.
We are finding this to be true: WE DO produces WE BELIEVE.
The CGGC is plugging away on its quest to revise its Doctrinal Statement. I have been praying over that effort almost since the day the work began. And, the more I listen to the Lord, the more clearly He tells me that this effort is in vain. It does not please Him or glorify Him and is not being led by His Spirit nor blessed by Him.
Works of service come before unity in the faith.
The core message of Jesus is that all people must repent--change the way they act.
The act of following is the first act of discipleship.
Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commands."
Hebrews says that the purpose of Christians meeting together is, first of all, to "spur one another on..." not to pure doctrine but "...to love and good deeds."
Peter says, "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us."
We will never honestly be able to state, "We believe..." until we achieve "We do."
posted by bill Sloat at 7:35 AM
2 Comments:
Affirming our belief in “no creed but the Bible” without a statement of faith is quite dangerous. Am I advocating for a revision of “We believe”? Not necessarily, but we certainly need to have some agreement on what we believe the Bible says (call it what you will) or each pastor or church becomes the pope.
I write these words after a long silence because I am really concerned that someone may believe that all we need is the Bible and not realize this does not account for the depravity of human beings.
Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis about a similar exchange in which a young woman “decided to get back to the Bible and just take it for what it really means”. Had she forgotten she was a sinner? Had she forgotten she grew up in a culture vastly different from first century Israel? Had she forgotten she grew up in the land of the free and the home of the brave—all of which affects one’s interpretation.
If we really believe there is no need for a written statement of what we believe it will certainly change the ordination service. No longer will an ordinand have to agree to hold to the teachings of the Churches of God because all that is up for grabs when the newly ordained minister finds something in the Bible that no one has ever found before. (Does the name Harold Camping ring any bells?)
Hey, this is just my opinion and I am fallible.
Lew,
I write these words after a long silence because I am really concerned that someone may believe that all we need is the Bible and not realize this does not account for the depravity of human beings.
I think it's time that the CGGC came to grips with the reality that John Winebrenner really did speak for the whole church in the day when it was bearing powerful fruit for the Lord when he said,
The Church of Cod has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.
If you disagree with Winebrenner--if EVERYONE in the church disagrees with him, fine. But, we came from somewhere and that did work better than what's working now.
By a long shot!
Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis about a similar exchange in which a young woman “decided to get back to the Bible and just take it for what it really means”. Had she forgotten she was a sinner? Had she forgotten she grew up in a culture vastly different from first century Israel? Had she forgotten she grew up in the land of the free and the home of the brave—all of which affects one’s interpretation.
Had she forgotten that, despite what's comfortable for postmoderns, that Jesus really did describe eternal justice and weeping and gnashing of teeth? Seems Rob recently has.
Maybe that young woman wasn't as far off as Rob Bell is?
Seriously, Lew, what this post was about is the reality that, according to Jesus, what we do is of primary importance. He never promises to give a doctrinal exam when He sits on His glorious throne and separates sheep from goats. What He does promise to do is say, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat..."
My experience from living more missionally now than I have in the past is that when we focus on following Him, we find less reason to split doctrinal hairs. I have come to think that if we determine to make living the life the important thing, we won't find a lot to argue about over doctrine.
Post a Comment
<< Home