I had lunch with a good friend of mine at Dairy Queen today. In that hour or two we were there, we had a greater talk and more challenging conversation than I usually have sitting through a sermon on a Sunday morning.
As I type that paragraph, I am filled with a mixture of emotion towards it. Part of me is glad to have a deep friend in my life like this with whom I can have such a great conversation. Part of me is bothered that I can't just walk into a church down the street and find the same kind of edification.
I wonder as I look at Protestantism and all of the factions, is what I am doing today just part of the problem? I really don't know. In a sense it seems that it is. Here I am, not in an established church, wanting to do a house church. Part of me just wants to pick a local church that I see as being closest to the truth and joining forces with them and not being another break in the body of Christ. I think too much about issues and doctrines to ever find anyone I agree with 100%. It just won't happen. Yet, I would be bothered if someone agreed with me 100% of the time. I want someone who is a student under me to disagree somewhat. I would be bothered if they never disagreed. Yet, I wouldn't expect them to start a new church because of a disagreement over X or Y or P.
So what makes it worth sticking with a local church and what makes it worth starting a new thing? I'm not sure I have the answer.
We talked about a brother who recently fell into sin. (Yes, we
talked and no, it wasn't
gossip.) We talked about our own ability to fall into sin and how capable we can be of very grievous behavior ourselves. We aren't above it.
We talked about the "new" atheism.
We talked about how as non-scholars we approach things. Neither of us have a degree. We're both thinking high school graduates who eat . . . I mean
read a lot of books. He and I both come from a background where as Protestants we simply accepted what we were taught at our churches. Our churches taught X. Then our pastors taught why non-X was false. We accepted those ideas. Didn't challenge them much initially. However, both my friend and I have broken away from those foundations. We each found an issue in which we didn't think the facts corresponded with what we were being taught. We were Berean.
Since then, both independently and together, we have explored different beliefs inside of Christianity that differ from our traditions and sought the best advocates on all sides. He and I aren't on the same side on all issues. Some of the differences we have aren't exactly minor. However, we've grown to respect differences.
When you hear a scholar say X, but you believe non-X, what is your reaction? My friend and I have the same reaction. We take what is said seriously. X and non-X cannot both be true. However, there are serious minds that love God and are born again, Spirit-filled people on both sides of almost any view. It's not my place to be flippant just because a view other than mine is expressed and especially when held by someone a lot smarter and who has put a lot more thought into an issue than I probably have.
Let me give an example. There is great debate in Christianity of how long ago God created the universe. We talked about a quote from the late Gleason Archer. Archer presents three different views for the Hebrew word
yom in Genesis 1. Check out this paragraph by Archer as he explains the third view he shares in his book . . .
Yôm represents a geologic age or stage in the creative process. This was the explanation resorted to by nineteenth-century geologists who respected the authority of the Bible, notably J. W. Dawson (e.g., The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, 1877) and James Dana (Manual of Geology, 1875). According to this view the term yôm does not necessarily signify a literal twenty-four-hour day, but is simply equivalent to “stage.” It has often been asserted that yôm could not bear this meaning, but could only have implied a literal day to the Hebrew mind according to Hebrew usage. Nevertheless, on the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Gen. 1 could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day.
Archer, G. L. (1998). A survey of Old Testament introduction (3rd. ed.].) (199). Chicago: Moody Press.
Re-read that last sentence. Archer's conviction is that the author of Genesis, based on internal evidence (i.e. not science, but based on the text itself) could not have intended literal twenty-four-hour days.
Now I'm a little undecided on this issue. But I lean towards some sort of progressive creation type view, i.e. billions of years, not thousands. As a young earth proponent, how do people react to this kind of claim? Do they ignore it as if it was never made?
Archer was a linguistic scholar. He had no foot in the scientific community. So claims that he wanted to be respected by the scientific community wouldn't hold water. For the most part the scientific community would have been oblivious to Archer's existence. He should not be ignored lightly. Do I take seriously the claims of scholars who hold views that differ from mine? I sure try to these days.
So we had a great time talking about how learning is humbling.
We talked about how the church needs both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The church needs right teaching and right practice. It seems most times one is abandoned largely at the expense of the other. He and I have a bent towards orthodoxy. It's our strength. The liberal churches have a bent towards orthopraxy. However, we need both. And we can't merely throw a token effort at the weak area. I need to work at this more.
Both of us are desiring to start a "church" in our local area and we are part of two different communities. Not that far apart . . . about 20 minutes.
We probably hit on other good topics while together. We never have enough time. I look forward to the next time we meet. Between DQ and my house we spent about four hours together (in case you were wondering how we talked about so many things).
So when you "go to church", what did you get challenged in last time? Or when you go next time, ask when the service is over how you were pushed to grow.
It doesn't take a service in a church building to have "church." Sometimes it just takes lunch with a good peer at Dairy Queen. Whatever you do in assembling with the brothers, do it regularly.
