"Liberal or Conservative?"
I may be naive, but I don't remember this discussion in scripture. Lest we think there were not differences between congregations in the first century, we need only look at the diffrences between individual churches within the New Testament; very different churches with extremely different backgrounds and memberships.
In Galatians, Paul is boiling about some people who have come from Jerusalem (a church of Jewish-Christians) to a place in Asia minor (churches mainly comprised of Greeks, and some Jews) trying to tell them how to evangelize within their local context. The Jerusalem brothers who were "of the circumcision group" did not know how to contextualize in Galatia. Why should they? And so they had no business telling them how to run the church there.
Rather than liberal/conservative, what I see in the New Testament is the churches throughout the world with strengths and weaknesses; the churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, Bythinia, etc., with separate groups of leaders. Each had the responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people in their respective communities.
Why do we need to be concerned about the practical decisions of leaders in other congregations in other parts of the country/world? Is not our responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people within our local context? I have no business telling other elderships and congregations how to be salt and light in their contexts, and they have no business being judgmental on ours as well.
Please don't ask me if we are a liberal or conservative church. Those designations and their possy of accompanying issues are so petty and often more coloquial than scriptural.
Ask me, rather, if we are being salt and light. Ask me if we are reaching people with the transforming message of the gospel of grace and truth - communicated in love for God and our neighbors. Ask me if we are a church who is in a constant process of renewal and discipleship. Ask me if are committed to the God who reveals Himself in the Bible.
I will gladly answer those questions:
"May God bless bless us as we continue striving to become so."
Am I naive?
In Galatians, Paul is boiling about some people who have come from Jerusalem (a church of Jewish-Christians) to a place in Asia minor (churches mainly comprised of Greeks, and some Jews) trying to tell them how to evangelize within their local context. The Jerusalem brothers who were "of the circumcision group" did not know how to contextualize in Galatia. Why should they? And so they had no business telling them how to run the church there.
Rather than liberal/conservative, what I see in the New Testament is the churches throughout the world with strengths and weaknesses; the churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, Bythinia, etc., with separate groups of leaders. Each had the responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people in their respective communities.
Why do we need to be concerned about the practical decisions of leaders in other congregations in other parts of the country/world? Is not our responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people within our local context? I have no business telling other elderships and congregations how to be salt and light in their contexts, and they have no business being judgmental on ours as well.
Please don't ask me if we are a liberal or conservative church. Those designations and their possy of accompanying issues are so petty and often more coloquial than scriptural.
Ask me, rather, if we are being salt and light. Ask me if we are reaching people with the transforming message of the gospel of grace and truth - communicated in love for God and our neighbors. Ask me if we are a church who is in a constant process of renewal and discipleship. Ask me if are committed to the God who reveals Himself in the Bible.
I will gladly answer those questions:
"May God bless bless us as we continue striving to become so."
Am I naive?
Labels: conservative, issues, liberal, simple christianity
posted by Daniel Cherry at 9:56 AM
8 comments
