I see so much "tolerance" within the church today for those who are proponents of Islam.. Some even say we pray to the same God. However, Allah has no sons. Are we who follow Christ going to take the hard stand that there is no other way to "The Father" but through the blood of Christ, or are we going to take the politically correct "easy way out" and declare validity to all faiths? Do math teachers say to their students that two plus two can equal five if that is what they want to believe?
Why then do some in the church insist of finding validity of faith where there is none? I can understand how those who refuse to accept the saving work of Christ can look upon it as foolishness. But, why do so many with in the "modern" church proclaim a message other that the gospel which Jesus the Christ preached, which Paul preached, which Peter preached, which was foundational to the early church? The power of God can only be unleashed upon the earth when we proclaim His truth and not our own.I am not proposing that we begin a "Holy War" to kill of all believers who follow other faiths. What I do "reproclaim" is that there is no other name in heaven or on earth by which man can be saved. The name of Jesus has power to those who believe on it. We can transform lives if we preach the TRUTH of God in its fullness and not the philosophy of men.
Dale in Ks
Dale, you asked "Why then do some in the church insist of finding validity of faith where there is none?"
Since you begin your post with word declaiming the God of Islam and insisting that Muslims do not worship the same God as Jews and Christians, I'm assuming that you are claiming there is no truth in Islam, in particular.
I want to suggest to you that the world, and religious truth, is not so black-and-white.
I believe that there are some very basic things that we are called to do: (1) Proclaim God. (2) Pray. (3) Give to the poor. (4) Practice moderation. (5) Visit holy places when possible.
Would you agree with any of these? If so, you've agree with at least some of the five pillars of Islam (obviously in modified form) and have found some truth in Islam.
Would you not also agree that God created heaven and earth, that he called Abram from Ur to be his servant and changed his name to Abraham, and that he covenanted with Abraham that his descendants would be God's people? Again, if you do, you have agreed to the truth of some of what is in the Qu'ran.
May I suggest that you take the approach to those of other faiths that St. Paul took when he visited the Athenians (who were polytheists, remember).
Paul said to them: "Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious, for as I was walking along I saw your many altars. And one of them had this inscription on it – 'To an Unknown God.' You have been worshiping him without knowing who he is, and now I wish to tell you about him. He is the God who made the world and everything in it." (Acts 17:22-24)
In other words, rather than attack the Athenians and claim that there was no "validity of faith" in their beliefs, he affirmd the partial truth of their religion and held out the further Truth of Jesus Christ.
We will have a much more peaceful world, and we Christians will have better luck working with and better success converting those of other faiths if we can follow Paul's example and honor what is true in their beliefs, then hold out the hand of fellowship and offer them "a still more excellent way."
Blessings, Eric in KS
Dale in Ks,
Bless you Dale, It's high time we get away from being politically correct and being Jesus correct. I believe time is getting short and we better be preaching Jesus and the resurrection. That was the message of the early church every where they went they preached it plain and simple. I don't care what these bleeding heart liberals say If we don't have Jesus we are lost and going to hell.
Harold in Alabama
Why is the expression "politically correct" used as though people trying to approach other religions from the standpoint of love and attempted understanding are only trying to avoid conflict? What is this blindness? And why do people who used the expression assume others are infidels? CE in CO
One interesting bit of info I came across in my research so far is that the literal translation of the beginning of v.13 is, "Has Christ been divided AND PARCELED OUT? This is in complete contrast to the obvious answer to Paul's subsequent question, "Were you baptized in(to) the name of Paul?", which was, "Of course not. We were baptized in(to) the name of Jesus Christ. The phrase "into the name" was used in the Roman world for money paid into a person's account. It was "into the name" of the Emperor that Roman soldiers were sworn into duty. It meant that the money paid, the soldier sworn, belonged entirely to that person. The contrast is striking. Paul is really asking, does Christ belong to us, or do we belong to him? I believe the true answer to that question is the determining factor in whether or not we stand united (belonging to Christ) or divided (believing that Christ is our personal possession). Ken in WV
Denominations in the Church
Being much concerned about the rise of denominations in the church, John Wesley tells of a dream he had. In the dream, he was ushered to the gates of Hell. There he asked, “Are there any Presbyterians here?” “Yes!”, came the answer. Then he asked, “Are there any Baptists? Any Episcopalians? Any Methodists?” The answer was Yes! each time. Much distressed, Wesley was then ushered to the gates of Heaven. There he asked the same question, and the answer was No! “No?” To this, Wesley asked, “Who then is inside?” The answer came back, “There are only Christians here.”
(1 Cor. 1:10-17)
Martin Luther said, “I pray you leave my name alone. Do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians.” John Wesley said: “I wish the name Methodist might never be mentioned again, but lost in eternal oblivion.” Charles Spurgeon said, “I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ’s own name last forever. I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living.”
The title of my sermon will be "United We Stand." Of course, most think of 9/11 when that phrase is mentioned.
More often years ago, the thought in denominations was, let's say Mennonite, because that is mine, Mennonites thought they were the only ones going to heaven. Only Mennonites could speak behind their pulpit. It's good we have our differences, but thank God for ecumenical ministerial associations.
I am a Christian first, then part of the Mennonite Church, which is a small part of the larger body--God's Family.
Tim in NE Ohio
I offer to all here an excellent analysis of the diversity amongst the Body of Christ.
See Jack Haberer's recent book "GodViews", which urges us to not see theological differences on a spectrum from left-to-right or conversative-to-liberal (or, I might add, my-way-vs-the-wrong-way).
Instead, Rev. Haberer challenges us to consider five "GodViews" in a constellation -- each being a priority or preference or calling to us. Yet, whichever is your one or two strongest GodView, we all need the challenge and the correction from the others.
BTW... those five are
The Confessionalist = a passion for truth
The Devotionalist = hungry for God and spirituality
The Ecclesiast = care and vitality for the church
The Altruist = reaching out to the "least of these"
The Activist = breaking the chains of injustice
None is exclusively right. All have Biblical foundations.
Get the book.
Although it features some references to one denomnation's current struggles, the truths apply throughout the church.
Greg Gillispie
Charlotte, NC
I do not deny my American citizenship when I proudly claim to be a Tenneseean, nor do I quit my state when I claim my city. The larger fellowship is assumed in the particular. No, wait. I forgot to say I am an Earthling, a Solar Systemite? A Universalist!? That's it!
When I say I am a Methodist, of course I mean I am a Christian. There are no Methodist Jews or Methodist Muslims or Methodist Druids that I am aware of.(Maybe there should be.) Methodism is a particular emphasis of Christianity.
While we are urged to be of One mind(Let Christ do our thinking?), Paul does recognise that the body is made of many parts, eyes and nose, knees and toes, two of these things, ten of those. There is room for some variety within the the church. Indeed, it is to be celebrated. I'm glad for my Catholic brothers, Episcopal sisters, Presbyterian in-laws and Lutheran out-laws, Reformed Dutch uncles, auntie Baptists, etc., etc.
Of course, my own belief is that everybody's a Methodist. A lot of them just don't know it yet because nobody's explained it to them yet. Just Kidding!(a little) tom in TN(USA)
I have discovered that a lot of church conflict is not theological or ecclesial. The problem many times is organization. If staff do not have clear job descriptions, if laity do not have clear goals, if the church is not planned in their ministry, then conflicts arise as people misunderstand one another. There is something to this descent and order stuff. Sam in SC
Tom in TN: "Of course, my own belief is that everybody's a Methodist."
Which, of course, would mean that everyone is really just an Anglican gone a little bit awry ... ;-)
Blessings, Eric in KS
See!?!? Sam in SC's talking about stuff being done "decently and in good order" ... you can't get more Anglican than that!
As the Anglican Bishop of Fredricton put it:
"The Anglican Church ... is concemed about dignity in the formality of its worship and church architecture. Anglicans do their duty by attending worship.... We also like the decorum that things are in place and everything is done decently and in good order."
Of course, his tongue was rather firmly in his cheek upon saying this as he was preaching for much Christian commitment from our parishioners. Still, he did note that we Anglicans have broad spectrum of practices and that we enjoy "diversity in unity and unity in diversity."
I actually went on a net search for the phrase "decently and in good order" and discovered that it is popular with and used by Presbyterians, Lutherans, Free Church, Reformed, Uniting Church of Australia, Churches of God, Baptists (of a quite a few different conventions), and many others. Perhaps we could find in this a common starting place for ecumenical union -- we haven't seemed able to find it very well anywhere else. Maybe in decorum and good manners ....
More thinking out loud.
Love y'all, Eric in KS
I am thinking of preaching about my sense that the church is being called to model communication, unity, respect, and conflict resolution to a world desperately in need of these things. I can do an amusing set up to that idea with a description of the expression on Cloe's face when she heard Paul's letter being read in the assembly. I can point out the importance of direct and respectful communication to the survival of the church and the world. The trouble is, I am not sure I can provide a formula for a way that we can do that. Our bishop has often said that in the church conflict is inevitable but combat is obtional. Some of the options to out and out combat that churches have tried so far are denial and a fascinating array of passive agressive behaviors. This often reminds me of my mother telling my sister and I to "just be nice to each other". The only thing we learned from that was to hide our fights from our mother. Does anybody have any practical ideas about how to promote healing in the body of Christ instead of division? When we lay down our swords and sheilds to study war no more, what do we take up?
Anna in Nebraska
I preached on this passage three years ago and called it "Subtracting Factions." You have to remember that Paul disagreed with people all the time. (Gal.2:11, Col.2:8 etc.). The Corinthians were not dividing over questions of theological truth, or a sense of justice or moral rightness. I think, according to Paul, those are worth arguing about (although we might consider being a little more humble than Paul when we are arguing...). The Corinthians seem to have been divided over factions, cliques within the church based on personalities rather than ideals. There were followers of Peter who may have come from a Jewish background. The followers of Paul were probably Gentiles converted when Paul lived and preached in Corinth. Apollos was the person who replaced Paul as preacher in Corinth. He was an eloquent speaker, and maybe he appealed to the intellectual Greek crowd. These were cliques probably fed by competition among the leaders.
All churches have natural groups within them. Parents of small children often get to know each other well and stick together. We have an Asian "clique" in our church. The choir, deacons, fix-it type people, share common interests, or experiences together. It's just when these groups exclude others, or become more important than the whole, that they are destructive.
There are times when division within and between churches is necessary. We Presbyterians divided over the issue of slavery years ago... and may again over the issue of sexuality. But Presbyterians take it for granted that there will be conflict, and we have a huge Book of Order to help us stay "decent and in order" when we disagree. Conflict is only bad when it is based on small-mindedness and competition, or personality styles, claiming that they have an exclusive key to the Kingdom of God, and forget that there are other people and churches who are also doing God's will, maybe in a different way.
Paul said, "Christ did not send me to baptize (and create personal followers), but to proclaim the gospel..."
This year we are having our annual meeting, and also remembering deceased members and friends by lighting candles during worship. Some of my people are joking that this is too Catholic, and the jokes reflect a bit of discomfort. But lighting candles is not an essential difference between us. That's just a question of style, and if it helps us to remember our friends, there's nothing wrong with it.
I am looking for some theological connection between this text and remembering those who passed away. If anyone has any suggestions, please post them!!!
DGinNYC
