Some division is necessary…Some is not. Who/what is really causing division and how are they causing it?

I submit that it has to do with this:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 18:17 & 18)

If the goal is to really bridge the gap between emergents and “traditionalists, as stated, then this biblical command will have to be taken seriously. If this action command is not undertaken by emergents, and only the creeds are put forward as the basis for bridging the gap, then the mentioned desired bridging and unity will not, and cannot, occur.

I think this illustrates a point that is actually foundational to the divide itself. The question is not whether someone holds any or some orthodox beliefs – because even cults arguably hold to some.

One the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church upholds one particular orthodox belief that sets it apart from cults by definition – the deity of Christ. However, at the same time, the RC holds to another belief that I would contend is heterodox and is also characteristic of cults by definition – that works are an essential component of salvation.

So, solving the problem becomes rather impossible – and paradoxically, the solution itself is at the heart of the problem – namely, identifying those doctrines which are the “fundamentals of the faith.” But wait, haven’t we been down this road before? Seems so – and it is that very road and departures from that road that have brought us to where we are.

But is this a bad thing? Isn’t it actually the right path – and also God’s ordained path for passing the faith from generation to generation?

And haven’t side-tracks from the road always taken those on that new path into the ditch? Christ himself said that the road is narrow and there are few that find it – and we find in the apostolic writings that there were also many who didn’t remain on it. Paul found himself abandoned by most of his co-workers in ministry. He found most of the churches he planted in trouble over time because of teachers who were departing from apostolic doctrine – some a little, some a lot – but all were a problem.

Going back to the similarities between the EC and historic liberalism, the EC tends to play down doctrinal differences for the sake of the unity you are seeking. Seeking unity is not a problem – it is seeking unity at the expense of truth that is the problem. And it is the question of this problem that I asked several times now that you haven’t yet answered. You have offered your reasons for seeking unity – which are legitimate. But you haven’t explained how to handle the many more passages that set the boundaries for the doctrinal limits that must be met for genuine unity.

There is a call to call out false teachers and to protect the church, no question about it.

There is also a call to unity.

Separating the true disciples from the false ones is sometimes straight forward, and sometimes not so straight forward. That is a benefit of the conversation, to try and find a way that we can all agree upon to separate the two.

I do not agree that inerrancy or the penal subsistutionary theory of atonement are the lithmus tests for orthodoxy even though I would personally would ascribe to a version of both. Homosexuality is a difficult one, but worthy of another conversation. While I think there is a consistent Biblical witness against homosexual practices, it is debatable as to whether or not we can disagree about it and maintain orthodoxy.

The whole point about talking about a third way, however, is that there are many of us who believe that we need not be so divided, that both sides do uphold orthodox beliefs, and that both sides have a great responsibility for the future of the church. If you don’t believe that, are unwilling to consider it or can’t see that then obviously this conversation will bear no importance to you.

You said: “I think we have probably taken this conversation as far we can.”

I thought that conversation enders were a very negative thing? What kind of platform is this to build reconciliation from? Does it only depend on what type of coversation ender is used?

That is a pretty short conversation and doesn’t it prove that the third way is not going to work to bridge “traditionalists” and the EC together?

I don’t think that John 17 supports the unity that is being proposed by the “third way”.

6″I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them.

These ones that God gave Jesus accepted and obeyed God’s Word. They didn’t deconstruct it and question it like the EC leadership and many in the EC…they just accepted it and obeyed it. Big difference.

I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Jesus is only praying for His disciples in this part of John 17, not the whole world. Where is the third way unity, here?

14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

The world hates His disciples because of God’s Word. Uh, oh! Hated?! Instead of being hated, why didn’t they just look for a third way? Wouldn’t third way unity have been better than being hated? Isn’t being hated a horrible platform in which to build bridges and reconciliation? I bet a third way of questioning God’s Word, questioning inerrancy/authority, questioning inspiration, questiong the content of the Gospel, questioning the definition of sin, etc. will make the world hate Christians and Christianity less, though.

17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth.

They were set apart, from the world, by God’s Word, which is Truth. They weren’t looking to find common ground with the world to bring consensus and unity…Jesus wanted His disciples to be set apart by God’s Word. Are calling is to be set apart by God’s Word…not finding common ground, which is the opposite of being set apart.

20″My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Jesus’s prayer, here in John 17< is only for His disciples and for those who will believe through the disciples message. These are the people that Jesus wants united as one…zHis disciples and future Christian believers…no one else. The proposed third way is contrary to the John 17 prayer of Jesus.

May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

The reason that Christians are in the world, set apart by God’s Word, and unified is so that the world will KNOW that God sent His Son and that God loves them. The proposed third way unity works contrary to this prayer of Jesus.

But how from a platform of denouncing false teachers and being critical of their shortcomings will such blessings ever take place? I am simply at a loss to think of a time when that position, as a starting place, has led to reconciliation or transformation within the body.

Then…why did Paul and Peter denounce false teachers and false teachings? Is there any NT model for seeking unity/common ground with false teachers and false teaching?

Isn’t THE starting place the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If their is no agreement there…biblically, are we supposed to go any further (with those who don’t believe)? Is there really any other platform or common ground?

What is the purpose of the local church? Why does the local church exist? How is the local church defined? How is the Church defined? What is the Church’s purpose?

(It is Greg not Gary by the way) This desire to find a better way to practice unity for the sake of the church comes from the consistent witness of scripture and the practice of the early church.

John 17 – Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and those who would follow that their unity in him and thus in God would show to the world the truth of who Jesus is. Each instance of division we live with works against our testimony to the world.

Paul’s continual appeal for unity – Philippians 4, Ephesians 4, Galatians 5 and the life in the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12-13 – so humbling and challenging, Romans 12 – a true life of sacrifice and humility in service to Christ

Philippians 2 – Our call to be like minded, sharing the same love, being in one Spirit and of one mind. Putting aside our vanity that living a life of humility like Christ would honor God and keep us united.

1 John 4 – Once again our treatment of one another will ultimately translate into how the world sees us

The work of the early church – not that it was all pure in motive or without outside influence – to gather together, for as long as it took, to create creeds, to develop theology, and to work towards unity and true teaching. Neither disunity nor bad teaching were acceptable.

Those are the witnesses of scripture and the church that urge me on in my ministry of reconciliation and unity.