Hi Sister Mary Jane…
How does this apply? Is the idea of "agree to disagree" found in the Bible among early believers as an acceptable way to deal with situations? I am just really trying to understand this, it has come up in my own walk with some. If we are one body of believers working together in union with Him to further His kingdom, then how does it work if there is no agreement?
I’ve been thinking about this for some time too. It seems that many believers long to return to the power and unity of the early Church. While the early Church was obviously far from perfect (since there were already some flaws apparent within the Book of Acts and within the epistles), I do understand this desire for unity. That said: I am not sure that this “unity of doctrine” was quite the same thing that some believers might suppose. I just can’t see the early Church picking apart some ideas and turning them into complicated prerequisites for doctrinal “unity.”
When I think about the childlike simplicity of a Gospel that drew children to crowd around Jesus, I am reminded about the council in Jerusalem that met to discuss the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles. Some believers had come to Syria and were insisting that Gentiles must fulfill the right of circumcision in order to be saved. This created a strong enough debate until Paul and Barnabas were appointed to accompany other believers to Jerusalem in order to meet with the apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:1-21).
When the apostles met to consider this question, Peter stood up and reminded the brethren that the law had been a yoke that no Jews had been able to bear. He went on to remind them that it is only be grace that we are all saved – Jew and Gentile (verse 10-11). James went further, saying that we should not make it difficult for people to be saved (verse 19). In fact, the apostles wrote their conclusion in an epistle that was sent along with Paul, Barnabas, Silas and Judas. In this letter, the apostles stated, “[i] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well[/i]” (Acts 15:28-29).
This was pretty simple. There was no discussion of sectarian theological requirements for complete doctrinal “unity” or “salvation.” There was no discussion about whether or not a person is predestined to be saved…or could possibly lose their salvation or walk away from knowing and loving God. There were no mandates about music, eschatology, dress, or which available scrolls of Scripture were the most reliable or authentic. Yet I have met believers today who will part company and even dismiss the faith of those with whom they disagree about certain doctrinal peculiarities. If you want to be a “member” of many denominational churches, you must agree upon certain sectarian doctrinal prerequisites. Even many local churches require compliance with certain local doctrinal teachings just to fellowship with the congregation!
Now, I have no problem with requiring adherence to essential doctrines. However, who gets to define just what is “essential?” I have seen churches which desire to dictate whether or not men can wear facial hair! There are congregations who will expel pastors and congregants who are not “pre-trib.” There are probably congregations who will expel those who are not “post-trib” too. I fear that some of these strict doctrinal prerequisites actually work [i]against[/i] the faith. They can give some individuals a false sense of security based upon legalistic compliance with localized sectarian dogma. They might actually serve to thwart the need for individuals to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). I have noticed that some of the people who are praying for “unity” are often praying that people will agree with those doctrinal issues that they (currently) feel certain of.
Of course, there are certain issues that are beyond debate. These are exceedingly clear from Scripture and are generally accepted by all believers. Hebrews 6:1-2 seemingly lays out some of these basic principles (such as repentance, the resurrection, faith in God and even eternal judgment). However, do we really need to agree about every last thing that is discussed under various church steeples? Should even more denominations be created in the hope to “unite” individuals around the specific things that often divide them from others?
Personally, I feel comfortable enough to fellowship with believers within a broad range of doctrinal diversity. I can worship, fellowship and break bread with a Baptist congregation in one town, a Methodist congregation in another town and a Pentecostal congregation in another. This is certainly NOT an embrace of every doctrine that might be espoused or proclaimed within these local churches (or those denominations). Rather, it is recognizing that the Body of Christ is much larger than a local church or set of beliefs that seem to vary from person-to-person and congregation-to-congregation. Even if someone doesn’t believe as I do in regard to certain peculiarities, I feel the grace to genuinely fellowship with those who profess a sincere relationship with our Lord.
:-)
