When everyone thinks the same
Faith communities are usually based on a common view of things. Common understanding is seen as a supporting pillar. This may have a historical basis. Sometimes there is a formative common experience for the community (this is how we speak of the churches of the Reformation, for example). Differences can become formative through distancing (example: free churches, Christian faith communities that are free from the state-bound nature of traditional churches). Still other communities build on a particular insight that is seen as formative for the community and is reflected in the name (Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists). Such terms are always delimitations. This does not change if one calls oneself in general “congregation of Christians” or “congregation of brothers” or similar, because also these communities are characterized by common interests, which is equivalent to a demarcation from other interests.
A shared view of things may well be seen as a pragmatic approach to building community. It is this part which connects. You don’t want to have to think through every disagreement over and over again – after all, there are more important things to do. To confess to a community does not have to be a confession of conformity, but it can also be the joyful decision to commit oneself, which recognizes valuable things in the form of the community and relativizes one’s own understanding in the exchange. This happens above all where people, sustained by the love of God, focus on relationships with God and people (1Jn 4:7-12). One’s vocation is considered the basis for service.
But a common view of things can also emerge as an unhealthy synchronization. This is the case when one’s own view is seen as the only correct one – and all others are wrong by definition. It is not the common vocation that is central then, but the identical confession of certain principles. So: we are OK, the others are not OK, because we think the right thing, the others do not. This is a typical feature of sectarian expression. To believe in a certain way is then better than another way. This can be a religious expression of certain attitudes to life (“a Christian should not smoke”) or it can also mean a dogmatic conformity (the Christian councils are typical occasions of such conformities). Who is “OK” and who is “heretic”? What “may” be seen as right and what “is” wrong? Here, the unifying factor is no longer seen in service but in confession, no longer in vocation and lifestyle but in doctrine and the assent to certain dogmas or religiously influenced actions. In a sober reflection, Paul says of these things that they are nothing but a satisfaction to the flesh (see Colossians 2).
The need for differentiation
Differentiation seems to be the most pressing issue in all disputes. After all, it will not work entirely without clarifying one’s own positions. We live in this world and boundaries are part of it. With regard to the content of faith, a better differentiation would give both clues for determining one’s position (and thus demarcation) and a basis for a broader view that does not get entangled in rigid doctrinal opinions. Undoubtedly, it is these questions that lead to disputes at all times and even today: What is important? Why is that? What is the basis? What attitude can we take in it?
An example: the ChicagoStatement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978. German text e.g. here: “The Chicago Declaration on the Inerrancy of the Bible” – A revised German translation by Rudolf Ebertshäuser) is an attempt to differentiate and at the same time to define the position. The statement is about the Bible and what it means, not about any dogmas or doctrines. Central is the reliability of the Bible, which is of far-reaching importance for the understanding of the biblical statements and the meaning for the believer. It starts at a fundamental point and it opens up, by definition (with all the limitations that definitions have), a common ground for many kinds of self-understanding. The explanation is sober, easy to grasp and gives clear key data. It wants to provide a foundation in the statement for Christians, without which there would be no identity.
However, the Chicago Declaration is ideological. It is the way of looking at the Bible that appears neutral, but is not entirely neutral. I would like to define “neutrality” in this context as “according to the purpose of the Bible”. This immediately shows how tricky it is to determine a location. After all, what is the goal? Am I not already interpreting? Being aware of this can help maintain a healthy view of the issue. It is about a certain personal understanding.
Why do others question the Chicago Statement? Because it is incomplete. Although the Bible is God’s Word, it is not to be confused with God Himself. Biblicist thought, however, sees little differentiation here. With takes the Bible in hand, and then confuses one’s own interpretation with the authority of the Bible, and the authority of the Bible is put in place of the authority of God. God = Bible is the Biblicist view, with all the consequences that entails.
This could be contrasted with the fact that God is greater than the Bible. We see this, for example, in John’s account of Jesus: “But there are many other things that Jesus did. If this were to be written down in detail, in my opinion, even the whole world would not have room for all the roles that would then have to be written” (John 21:25). If this is already true of Jesus, how much more extensive would a “complete” Bible have to be, which also says everything about God?
The Bible is not comprehensive. The Bible is selective. Regarding Jesus, John writes what the purpose of his words was: “Many other signs Jesus did before the eyes of His disciples, which are not written in this scroll; but these were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have eonian life in His name.” (John 20:30-31). This is the purpose for which John wrote.
The Bible does not describe everything. It is God’s word, but God is greater than the Bible. It is a book that wants to lead us into relationship, but does not want to lock us into narrow, dogmatic views.
It’s these testing site assessments that really help. Such approaches can also be given a place locally, that is, in the local community (congregation, church, house group). Here, the healthy handling of areas of tension can be taught and encouraged so that vitality in the body of Christ (the worldwide church) is preserved.
Areas of tension
As Christians, we live in various areas of tension. It is not just a question of ethics or a vague spirituality. Christianity recognizes itself as a religion of revelation. God speaks through His Word. This challenges.
“Your word is truth,” Jesus said (John 17:17). Thus, true and not-true stand opposite each other. It is almost liberating for many people that there is such a thing as truth. That is no longer a matter of course today. Truth is often seen only as subjective. In the biblical sense, however, it is always objective and remains truth even if others see it quite differently. Such is stable and not subjective. It is and remains true even if I myself or someone else does not believe in it. This truth is not dependent on our consent.
But doesn’t this very realization require the courage to see the Bible as reliable, but one’s own understanding as limited? Differentiation can be the answer to a rigid belief in rules. Of course, we find approaches to this in the Bible, which knows nothing of rigid dogmatic imprinting. We can rely on the Bible in the sense of how Abraham did not believe “in” God but “God believed”, namely trusted His Word (Gen 15:6 Gal 3:6) and as Paul wrote: “For I believe God that it will come to pass in the way that was promised to me”. (Acts 27:25). Here we see that men of faith did not start from beliefs, but from the relationship with the living God. It is believed because He says so. It is an expression of personal trust.
The field of tension thus occurs where the reference to God is replaced by something else, for example by a dogma. Faith in the biblical sense is a trust, and more specifically a trust in what God says – in the final analysis, it is a trust in God. There is a person and a personal relationship central. That is the only thing that can be applied to the meaning of the Bible: We believe the Bible because we put our trust in God. We trust Him and align our lives with His promises. This fills with expectation, confidence, life (cf. Jn 6:63).
The alternative to the Gleichschaltung
The Bible does not know a uniformity. Congregations are simply the gatherings in one place. This is how Paul addresses his letters to the church in Rome, in Colosse, in Philippi, etc.
As an apostle to the nations, he speaks to the non-Israelites (Rom 11:13, etc.). In contrast, the 12 apostles speak to the Jews: James speaks explicitly to the 12 tribes in the dispersion (Jas 1:1) and Peter addresses the “chosen emigrants in the dispersion” (1Pet 1:1), which can only be said of Jews outside of Israel.
So these two groups exist, but neither among the Jesus-believing Jews nor among the Jesus-believing Gentiles (each with its own gospel according to Gal 2:7-9) is the community formed according to human knowledge. They are the “called of Jesus Christ, to all the beloved of God and called saints” (Rom 1:7). It is not the signing of a creed that is the basis of the community, but being called by Jesus Christ, being loved by God, that is central.
The alternative to uniformity is the acceptance of difference with the aim of complementing each other. Our cognition will remain different and we can avoid this cognition or consciously integrate it. The last would be my approach. Many opinions are good, because we can not understand everything alone. Paul knows this challenge in the church when he writes:
“Brothers, I do not yet consider myself to have grasped it. But I do one thing: I forget what is behind me and reach out to what is in front of me. So I chase after the goal, after the prize of the calling of God above in Christ Jesus. All of us now who have matured may be mindful of this; and if you are otherwise minded in anything, God will reveal this to you also. Meanwhile, wherein we overtake others, we should be like-minded to follow the basic rules according to the same guideline.”
Phil 3:13-16
The same mindset is what Paul is putting first here, not conformity in doctrine, dogma, or anything else. He can say it this way because he starts from the calling of God alone. This is the same for all, knows no difference by race, sex, skin color or cognition. Our ways and our recognition are and remain different. This might even be desirable.
Why many opinions are good
Many a personal question did not immediately resolve for me. I carried many questions around with me for years until they were resolved. Other questions I have been able to answer satisfactorily through intensive Bible study. And again other questions are not clarified until today. I suspect it’s the same for all of us. And that’s good, because: I understand something, and you understand something too. Together we understand more. The biblical understanding of knowledge is not that one person understands it alone, but we understand the essential only together, because it is understood only in relationship.
Paul prays for the believers in this sense:
“Therefore I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every generation in heaven and on earth receives its name, that He may grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, that the Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, so that, being rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to do so. To understand with all the saints the breadth, the length, the depth, and the height, and to know the love of Christ, which yet surpasses all knowledge, that ye may be filled to all the fullness of God.”
Ephesians 3:14-19 (Schlachter 2000)
Real comprehension, Paul writes, happens only “with all the saints.” And by these saints he means all believers (Eph 1:1). Therefore, if someone stands up and thinks that he knows a special teaching that brings us especially close to God, then it is almost certainly a false teaching. Or it is someone who, despite good teaching, sets himself up as a false teacher by trying to bind people to himself instead of to Christ. This is precisely why Paul’s prayer is so significant. We can’t do it alone. We can only understand together.
Comprehension takes place in the community, in the congregation. This is more than just “cognition.” Paul vividly describes this as being about “the breadth, the length, the depth, and the height,” and about knowing the “love of Christ, which yet surpasses all knowledge.” That, too, is remarkable. Paul is not concerned with a special or particular doctrine, such as only for initiates. Already at the time of Paul there were people who pursued “knowledge” (Gr. gnosis) like one pursues things or treasures. They were called Gnostics. Their teaching caused much harm to the church in the first centuries. But Paul writes that it is a matter of knowing the love of the Christ, which surpasses all knowledge. It is not about enlightened thoughts or special knowledge, but about a person. It’s not about things, it’s about relationship. Love is an expression of relationship, not of secret knowledge, supposed knowledge or special teachings.
The blessing of diversity
So many opinions are good. They are the normal thing. While this does not solve anything in detail about how we can deal with differences. But here we realize that no one person alone has all the truth, but that we can only understand together. This is a sober statement and has not only the promise that we can so “to know the love of the Christ” but Paul continues with: “That you may be filled to all the fullness of God”. Accordingly, great gains can be expected if we embark on this journey together as a community.
Note: We need each other if we are to truly understand the love of Christ.
Deepening
Suggestions for conversation
- Read and discuss Ephesians 3:14-19 . That everyone should think alike seems a romantic idea, or it is reminiscent of a totalitarian state. Is Gleichschaltung desirable? What is pro/con?
- Read and discuss Philippians 3:13-16. What attitude may we take?
- What is the alternative to the Gleichschaltung and what is the basis for it? (See Rom 1:7)
- Read and discuss the Chicago Statementon Biblical Inerrancy. What is good, what needs differentiation?
