Further thoughts on the matters I discussed last night.
The issue of religious cooperation between groups that differ theologically is a velcro-ish one. I have come to a view of my own, which I’ll outline here. Use it if you find it helpful. If not, no big deal.
Cooperation looks very different today than it did when I was young. In those easy times (easy from a social point of view), Christians had the luxury of being stand-offish with each other. A Lutheran church might very reasonably refuse to participate in, say, a community event where a Baptist preacher spoke (though my own people were pretty tolerant of Billy Graham). Even the Baptists understood that. In its way, it was a statement of respect for Baptist exceptionalism.
And cooperating with Catholics? Well, that would only happen in the face of something very big. A community tragedy, perhaps. And even then the Lutherans would take some steps to make it clear they weren’t giving tacit assent to the idea of the authority of the pope.
It’s different now. Christians who actually believe the historic faith are a small remnant, with our backs to the wall, fighting for survival. In general (there are exceptions), if somebody throws us an ammunition belt or shares his canteen, we don’t ask which division he comes from. We have much greater differences with those guys over there who are trying to kill us.
Still, there are limits. Politics is different from faith. I won’t pray with some people, though I’d vote for them. It would be untrue to my own creed, and condescending to theirs.
In my Bible study some years back, I came across what I judge to be Jesus Christ’s principle in these matters.
First of all, there’s Matthew 12:30, where Jesus says, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”
A hard statement, beloved of stern sectarians (like me, I suppose). This verse falls like a cleaver, chopping humanity into two segments.
But there’s another statement, similar but intriguingly different, in Mark 9:39-40: “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad against me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”
“What’s this?” I used to wonder. “Isn’t this a contradiction?”
Then I read closely, and realized it’s not a contradiction at all. Jesus is discussing two different things.
In Matthew, He says that whoever is not with Him is against Him.
In Mark, He says that whoever is not against us is for us.
The difference is in the pronouns.
I think Jesus is setting up a hierarchy of values here. The crucial thing is what someone confesses about Jesus. That’s an in or out matter; faith in Him is central and determinative.
But when it comes to being for or against “us” (our group within the Christian community), the standard is lower. I don’t have to demand that someone else share my group’s every point of theology in order to accept them as brethren.
I need to carefully examine what they say about Jesus—don’t get me wrong on that. But once I’m satisfied that they believe in the Christ of Scripture and the creeds, then I can agree to disagree on other stuff.
This is my own interpretation. I am willing to be corrected by wiser souls.
As a Jew, my view is obviously slanted differently. But the way I see it, there are three levels here:
1. Secular matters, where you can cooperate with any person of good will.
2. Religious matters, where you can only cooperate with fellow Christians.
3. Communion matters, where you need to be with people whose theology is the same as yours.
I can see a lot of things that are in the first category, and quite a few that are in the third category. What would be in the second category?
Ori, the distinction is one that would be meaningless in Judaism–that between the saved and the unsaved. This method offers a way to look at fellow Christians with whom we disagree seriously, and still see them as among the saved.
Other than academic interest, what does it matter if a person is saved or not? Are your responsibilities to Dave Damned any different than towards Sally Saved?
Yes,they are. Belonging to the Body of Christ (the church) brings definite privileges and responsibilities in terms of fellowship and cooperation. Our obligation is to share Christ with the lost, and ideally we’re expected to cooperate in that effort. Knowing whom to cooperate with is helpful. I think it’s in Psalms that it says, “How good and peaceful it is when brothers dwell together in unity.” It’s nice to know who your brothers are.
I honestly don’t know what “saved” means. People are on the path to God or they’re not, and they can turn around (for good or ill) at any moment. I can’t see it as a static, lifelong membership on one side of the fence or another, even though I believe the choice at every moment is entirely binary: for God or not.
As for sectarian differences, there are some that make me more uncomfortable than others, or that are more of an obstacle for me than others, but few I can claim matter deeply as long as the core is there. For instance, while I don’t believe in the Pope’s infallibility and never would submit my conscience to his in an absolute or universal sense, I nevertheless agree with him far more often than not and am inclined to venerate him. Still, when it comes down to it, if the Pope ordered me to do something I felt was wrong, I would decline without inner torment.
I usually find that the most unfamiliar parts of another sect have to do with church governance. I perhaps ignore some of the particulars of my own sect (Episcopalianism) that I don’t find compelling or central, such as the prohibition of eulogies in funeral services or the insistence that all flowers at weddings and funerals must be white. I needn’t agree with everything the Episcopalian Church decides about things like divorce and homosexuality, either. As for matters like whether the body of Christ is or is not “literally” present in the sacrament of communion, my mind is simply not so constituted as to make such a vivid distinction between a “literal” and a supernatural or metaphorical presence. It seems to me exactly the sort of thing Christ did not spend time or attention instructing us about, and therefore something we needn’t know in order to get on with the business of our lives and duties.
Good thoughts Lars. Esther and Nehemiah especially give good guidance here also — as does Romans 13 which specifically says gov’t is (one of) God’s agent for earthly justice.
Spiritually I have a lot more in common with Jimmy Carter (God help us all. 🙂 ) than with Mitt Romney. Romney would be an exponentially better President… and woul det my vote… but I would take communion with Jimmy Carter and not Romney.
It probably is just a nominal contradiction, but your scheme is a good one. As with many things, however, the Devil is in the details. Speaking as a Mormon, I should know . . . 😉