Tim Challies Stops by On His Blog Tour

As I mentioned in my last post, Tim Challies is stopping by today on his blog tour which is promoting his new book, The Discipline of Discernment.

Those of us who have Tim stopping by get to pose him a question, and we post the answer on the blog.  Then, he'll hang out in the comments section today for feedback and interaction.  So, without further ado, here's my question and Tim's answer.

The Question:

In our denomination we ask those seeking to join our church to take five vows, the last of which  reads:

Do you submit  yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

As discernment is a discipline most often associated with protecting the purity of the church, how might this discipline be used to protect the peace of the church?  Along with that it might be helpful to note whether you see peace as a subordinate attribute to purity, and therefore contingent on purity, or vice versa, or whether you see these as separate attributes which are equal in importance, or if the two have some other type of relationship I haven’t thought of.

The Answer

As you have, I’m sure, I’ve often heard Christians say “Doctrine divides.” They may not use those exact words, but many Christians really do believe that a firm and confident emphasis on doctrine in a local church will serve to divide one Christian from another. Far better, they may think, to err on the side of charity and love than to emphasize “mere” theology. Scripture, though, teaches us the opposite. Scripture teaches that peace and unity come when Christians share doctrine and when they are committed to the doctrinal purity of the local church. One need only read the New Testament epistles to witness the Apostles emphasizing unity among Christians and especially unity in local churches. Time and again we see how they correct disruptions in unity: they teach the truth—God’s truth—with confidence that this is the remedy. Purity does not come with peace. Rather, true peace comes with purity.

I have found it helpful to understand discernment as a discipline that functions much as the body’s immune system. Because we are unable to completely avoid contact with germs and contagions, God has given us a remarkable immune system that combats illnesses. When this system is dysfunctional the body is left defenseless. The much publicized HIV virus is a prime example of this—a disease that disables a person’s immune system, leaving his body riddled with disease, infection and tumors. HIV does not actually kill a person. Rather, it leaves him helpless before the onslaught of other diseases. Spiritual discernment is the church’s immune system and is given to us so that we might guard the purity of the church. Without discernment the church quickly and inevitably succumbs to the evil influences that are constantly arrayed in opposition to it.

If we see peace being contingent on purity, which I believe to be the biblical order, we will see that discernment is critical to a person who wishes to “study the church’s purity and peace.” Discernment maintains purity among Christians which in turn promotes peace.

Thanks for this Tim, and now we turn to you, dear readers, for feedback and interaction

Comments

[D. L. Kane]

Time said:

"Scripture teaches that peace and unity come when Christians share doctrine and when they are committed to the doctrinal purity of the local church."

Where do we draw the line? I currently attend a church who requires that I hold to pre-mil, pre-trib, dispensational theology in order to qualify for membership. The reasons are to "protect the flock and retain unity" They are otherwise "reformed" and frankly my only option where I live for worshipping the Lord on Sundays.

How much unity in doctrine should be required in order to retain purity. Do we really want a pew full of stepford wife type christians who simply agree with whatever the local church requires. I realize this is a huge issue and will differ with almost every single local church. I have seen differences in the "non-essentials" divide a church. So, where does one draw the line. It seems to me, if the local church strives to protect unity at any cost, we also end up with thousands of isolated Christians who stay in their comfortable "clubs" and who never feel a need to actually allow the Spirit of God and the scriptures to work in their life. I don't think that is the type of "unity" Christ has in mind. But, that is exactly where the protestant church is at.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me this is one of the biggest problems in the churches today and why it was Luthers original desire to "reform the church" not divide it. As we all know, that didn't happen.

I think we need to go back to making the "essentials" of the faith (which are the only "pure" doctrines) the only requirement for unity and trusting and yielding to God, His Word, and the Holy Spirit to work even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

As much as I like worshipping at a church where all the members believe exactly as I do (even on the "non-essential" doctrines that have been debated for years), I don't see that as "unity", I see that as little miniature versions of Rome.

For what it's worth.

ForHisSake

[Tim Challies]

You ask a good question. In the book I follow Dr. Albert Mohler's line of reasoning when it comes to "theological triage." I suggest that the closer a doctrine is to the gospel, the more important it is that we demand it as a point of unity within the local church. There are some issues that are absolutely critical to anyone who would consider himself a Christian. These are, obviously non-negotiable. There are other issues that are important enough that they may be requirements for membership and the unity that comes with us (agreement on baptism, perhaps, or agreement on the spiritual gifts). And then there are issues on which we can disagree even while maintaining great unity and in this camp I'd suggest things like educational choices or eschatology.

Tim

[D. L. Kane]

I guess I just don't get it. The "unity" of a local church is different than the unity Christ speaks of? The leaders of a church decide which doctrines are required for "unity" in their church, as long as they feel they are closely tied to the gospel, even if they admit they have no "saving" power-like baptism?

So, Martin Lloyd-Jones and RC Sproul would be "pre-emptively" excommunicated from membership at a reformed baptist church, should they desire to commit to membership, unless of course they changed their convictions? Because... should they be allowed as members they might cause disunity? And MacArthur would not be allowed as a member of a church who required their members to hold a strictly covenantal position? Because....should we admit him to membership, he might cause disunity? Oh, we'll let them preach from the pulpit, but they cannot become members of this church.

So, in order to find "unity" at a local level, one must find a church that agrees with them on what is and what is not essential for local church unity and if they cannot find such a church, they need to start their own?

No wonder we are in the situation we are in.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I still don't get it. My gut tells me it's wrong. I haven't heard a convincing argument that can justify what is going on in the different denominations and in the local churches within and without those denominations. Whatever we are doing, it's not working torwards the "unity" Christ speaks.

Grace to You,
D.L. Kane

[Sean Kelly]

You state:

"Scripture, though, teaches us the opposite. Scripture teaches that peace and unity come when Christians share doctrine and when they are committed to the doctrinal purity of the local church."

I'm curious where you see this in the scriptures because I would have said exactly the opposite.

Take for example Ephesians 4 where Paul exorts us to be "diligent to preserve the unity of the Sprit in the bond of peace." v. 4 because unity/oneness is a pivotal characteristic v. 4-6 realizing that oneness doesn't mean sameness as Christ has given different gifts to men v. 7-11 to be used to equip and build up v. 12 _until_ we all attain to the unity of the faith v. 13

Or for an alternate line of reasoning to the same conclusion take how Philip, Peter and John treat Simon in Acts 8. Based on a profession of belief alone he is baptized into the church only to be rebuked so severy you wonder if he was ever a real believer at all. However, admittedly an argument from silence, no changes are ratified or demonstrated as a result to protect the church from it happening again in the future.

I don't mean to be contentious, I'm just curious how the scriptures have impressed you toward your understanding.

[cavman]

I agree that doctrine is important for the unity of a local body, as is charity on non-essentials. Behavioral impurity -sin- also breaks the peace. Sadly, I see lots of people advocating peace w/out wanting to address the sin issues that have broken it.
I guess I see the examples given by others as sinful expressions of unity- one forced on people based on distinctives rather than issues of christology & soteriology without which sin has not been put away as a basis for peace. Paul tossed a whole bunch of theology into Ephesians before he got to the instruction to maintain the bond of peace, following it up with the call to sanctification.
Hope the book sells well, and many are edified.

[Wayne]

Tim,

Thanks for your answer here. I know you've moved on to your next "tour" stop, but I wanted to comment on your statement about "peace being contingent on (doctrinal) purity." It seems to me that the Bible places an equal responsibility on the church to practice peace and purity - that one is not so much contingent on the other as they are intertwined. Hence, speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and practice love in truth (cf. 2 John 1-5). In that light, isn't discernment not merely for maintaining purity, but equally necessary for maintaining peace?

At Justin Taylor's blog you're answering a question about the meanness of many discernment bloggers. I don't think they see themselves as mean. They think they are promoting peace ("true unity" is what some would say). They may even believe that peace is contingent on purity (although I know how you practice that is light years different from them). But the fact is they're polished at discerning the truth, but lousy at discerning peace.