Christian unity in today's world > Likes and Comments

In his prayer the night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed to the Father for those who believed, and would in the future believe, in him "that all of them may be one.... as we are one; I in them and you in me" (John 17:21-23). The New Testament epistles consistently exhort the Christian community towards unity. Paul, for instance, speaks of "one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:4), and characterizes partisan factional divisions, aligned around competing leaders, among Christians as "carnal" (I Corinthians 3:3-4).

This unity proved to be challenging even in the first century, when serious differences in beliefs, ethnic fissures and personal ambitions among Christians worked to pull the church apart, even as the Holy Spirit and Spirit-guided leaders worked to bond it together. In the ensuing centuries, we have become used to disunity and discord, evidenced by the number of typical entries in any phone book under "Churches," as the Christian norm. Many Christians even consider that disunity to be the new Divine will, superseding any biblical exhortations towards unity.

My own conviction is that God has never ceased to desire the unity of His people, although His people have failed dismally to do their part to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). In its own way, the formation of this group is intended as part of that effort, as it seeks to bring together a fairly ecumenical spectrum of Christian believers for fraternal discussion of our common faith. Whatever the biblical writers mean by unity, and however we understand it, we're more likely to achieve it by civilly discussing our differences than by either avoiding/ignoring or by denouncing each other.

Hopefully this post can be a springboard into more discussion of what Christian unity should consist of and look like in the modern world, what we might do to work towards it, and what sorts of actions and attitudes militate against it!

It's been more than a year since I created this particular discussion thread, and it has yet to evoke any discussion. That's probably not surprising; for most of us, even if we regret the disunity of the church, it seems too ingrained and intractable a problem to do anything about , and none of us really know how to go about doing anything about it as individuals. I started the thread to get ideas of how to contribute to this (and to raise consciousness about the issue) more so than to provide specific ideas of my own.

There are not many whole books written on this subject, and I haven't read many of the few that have been written. But though it treats all aspects of the life of a church that's healthy and (by New Testament standards) "normal," not just its unity, IMO the book The Normal Christian Church Life by the 20th-century Chinese Christian thinker and theologian Watchman Nee is a valuable starting point for discussion on this subject, and I highly recommend it!

In his Preface to his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis wrote that the common core of defining and constitutive Christian beliefs shared by all genuine Christians, regardless of denomination, "...turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are really not comparable at all. If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited." We can fairly count Lewis as a supporter of the project of Christian unity, and Mere Christianity as a resource for this discussion. (My review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .)

The long-continued doctrinal discussions I've been involved in on threads both in this group and another one have forcefully brought to my mind one of the important negative consequences of our fragmented disunity. When we deliberately limit our local fellowships with other believers to those who agree with us on a particular point of doctrine, then within that little group there's never any challenge to that particular point. Sure, a few of us may engage in doctrinal debates in an online forum like this one, and a few who are so inclined may read dissenting views (often with the goal of discrediting them), or write polemical defenses of their own theological point and attacks on dissenting views. But the great majority of Christians never hear their own starting-point theology questioned.

You may say, "That's great; thus, the weaker believers are thankfully shielded from error!" BUT: a.) those weaker believers are then never given the opportunity to become strong believers by examining what they believe and the reasons for it, in the face of regular interactions with fellow believers who may differ; b.) erring believers in other similarly self-selected little groups are barricaded, by the lack of any normal interaction, from any positive influence you could bring to draw them to the truth that you possess; and c.) [related to b} whole groups of believers, numbered in hundreds or thousands (or even millions) can continue to exist for centuries in error, shielded from any contact with the truth. (And even if you're convinced that your own denominational group is entirely correct in its teachings, you have to admit that my point is validated by the regrettable existence of all of these other erring denominations!)

A second, and related, negative consequence arises from fallen human psychology (which Christians still have to contend with by dying to it daily, with the Spirit's help). We all have a tendency towards tribal loyalty, which we can be tempted to unconsciously place above loyalty to God's Kingdom or to truth. For many of us, the denomination we're raised in, if we born into one, or the church through which we heard the gospel and got saved, is our "tribe," functionally. And our local church, if it's functioning as a church ought to, is an extension of our blood family, a network of close personal relationships and the venue in which we do God's work. If this tribe and spiritual family is built around something more restrictive than genuine salvation through faith in Christ, then the problem is not simply that that "something" may be erroneous, and that we're not likely to be exposed to the truth. It's also that, if we are exposed to the truth, by our own reading of the Bible or some other writing, or by contact with a disagreeing believer, and we begin to suspect that our prior belief is wrong, we're faced with the disagreeable awareness that changing the belief will mean being kicked out of our church, losing our tribe, and sundering relationships that mean a lot to us. It's not hard to see that this creates a temptation towards compromise of truth and conscience. To my mind, setting up a structural situation into which that temptation is integrally locked in is not a good idea. That illustrates the fact that NO idea that humans come up with to "improve" on God's design by changing the latter is ever a good idea! :-(

My previous post touched on one of the arguments frequently advanced in favor of Christian disunity: that segregating all the believers in correct doctrinal theology (whatever the person making this argument thinks that is) away from contact with the more erring brethren who are doctrinally misled will protect young and/or weak believers in the segregated group from theological error. I've tried to suggest, above, why I feel that argument is seriously flawed. In this post, I hope to address a few of the other common arguments in favor of the current status quo.

1. "All of the Christians in [locality X] couldn't possibly worship in the same building; there are too many of us. Therefore, disunity is our only practical option, and not a negative at all."

The organic unity envisioned in the New Testament does not consist of, and doesn't require, physically worshipping in the same building, even for believers who all live in one city. It's clearly indicated in some of Paul's letters that the Christian community in some cities met in multiple house churches, rather than in a single one. This would be an obvious practical response to the logistical impossibility of fitting all the believers into a single space too small for them, and Paul doesn't express any problem with it.

The difference between this state of affairs and the present one, however, is fundamental. All of the believers in each New Testament house church saw themselves as part of the same congregation as the others. They all recognized the same collegial leadership, all cooperated in ministry, and did not compete with each other for converts. Believers who normally met with one house church would be welcome in the others, and they could take communion together, because the separate locations for worship were simply a matter of logistics, not of rejection of or deliberate dissociation with each other. The situation that prevails today can't be passed off as being very similar to the New Testament reality.

2. "We all have different likes and dislikes, different tastes, different theological ideas, and different ethnicities and class backgrounds; and we all pretty much prefer to hang out with people like us. Worshipping with people who aren't much like us would take us out of our comfort zone, and probably even be irritating. Living the Christian life is much smoother and less stressful if we sort ourselves out into groups of similar tastes, ideas, backgrounds, etc., and don't mix with those who are different."

Everything stated in the preceding paragraph is true. However, it's also true that God's purpose for us is not necessarily to keep us in our comfort zone, eliminate stress from our lives, and make sure that our Christian walk is easy and unchallenging. Rather, His declared purpose is to transcend our diversity by bringing us together in a common fellowship (Galatians 3:26-29), evidenced by mutual love (I John 4: 19-21). Systematically avoiding any interactions with Christians who are "different" from us would seem on the face of it to directly thwart that purpose; and growth in virtues such as love, patience, forbearance etc. would appear to be best fostered under challenging situations that evoke them through irritation and stress, rather than under situations that don't impose much challenge on us.

3. "The unity of believers that's called for in the New Testament is a spiritual unity, an attitude existing in our hearts and minds. Therefore, it doesn't have to have any observable effect at all on the way we conduct ourselves towards each other in order to be real."

To my mind, that's a classic example of a half-truth, the effect of which can be as damaging as a falsehood. One could argue, with equal validity, that saving faith is a spiritual reality, that must necessarily exist in our hearts and minds. But the New Testament frequently reiterates the point that if that attitude is real, it IS necessarily going to have observable effects on the way that we act. A genuine recognition of our unity in Christ would necessarily have observable consequences in the same way.

A recognition of Christian unity must entail the realization that we're part of one body, all of the parts of which are supposed to be working in tandem, united under the same head (Christ), siblings in the one family of God, and called to be cooperating in the proclamation of the one gospel and the building of the one kingdom of God. If that realization is genuine, IMO, it has to result in a tangible concern for each other's welfare and at least a desire to cooperate in tangible practice.

I don't know whether or not these considerations will prompt those who read this to view Christian disunity as a problem and an undesirable anomaly (rather than as the providential expression of God's perfect will). But it does indicate why I believe this, and believe that Christian unity should be a goal we at least want to work towards, with God's gracious guidance and help.

So far, I'm the only person who's commented on this thread. But it does have nine views; and I consider it as important a topic for all present-day Christian believers to consider as any of the others in this folder --and perhaps more important than some, in terms of biblical faithfulness. So as time permits, I'm going to continue to share my thoughts and reflections on this subject, not because I think I have all the answers, but because I believe that trying and testing our thinking together about this can be used by God to bring us closer to a common understanding of His will.

Perhaps one worthwhile contribution to the discussion might be to clarify what Christian union, biblically, does NOT mean. It's not, in the first place, intended as an excuse or cover for unity with non-Christians. As I once pointed out to my Sunday school class, "We believe, and say, that every Christian in [our community] is a member of this church (even if he/she doesn't participate as a member); but we don't say nor believe that every person in this community is automatically a member."

In his letter to the Roman Christians, Paul exhorted them to "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you" (15:7), and to "Accept... without passing judgment on disputable matters," 14:1. Our grounds for mutual acceptance of one another in unity, then, is Christ's prior acceptance of us as his in salvation, which Paul and the other New Testament writers regard as requiring our repentance from sin, and acceptance by faith of Christ as our Lord and Savior from the wrath of God against our sins. Adherence to the "good news" of this salvation by faith, Paul says, is absolutely nonnegotiable; those who proclaim a different message are not our partners in unity, but are instead under God's curse (Galatians 1:6-9). Paul doesn't regard the gospel as a "disputable matter."

This makes it clear that Christian unity does have theological parameters. It includes all those who have genuinely repented and placed their faith in Christ as Lord and Savior from sin and its God-imposed penalty, but only those. So it does not include "Christian atheists" who deny the existence of a God judging sin in the first place; those who deny that there is any such thing as sin to repent of, or that they personally have any guilt of sin; nor those who have no actual faith in Christ as a Savior from sin, including "nominal Christians" who, through infant baptism or some other process, have had their names entered on a member's list in some organized "church," but have never accepted Christ as Lord and have no desire to do so. "Christian unity," then, is not a project for including these people in our congregations (unless they actually do have a later change of heart and accept Christ).

Related to this, Jesus and the New Testament writers are clear that Christian unity also has moral parameters. Unrepented sin stubbornly clung to excludes the sinning person from the church's fellowship (Matthew 18: 15-17, I Corinthians 5:9-13, II Thessalonians 3:10-15, etc.). The love commands and other moral commands laid down objectively in the Word of God are not "disputable matters" either, because the Word is recognized as a priori authoritative. Church discipline that enforces these commands as a condition for fellowship, then, is not a violation of Christian unity as the New Testament defines it, but rather an essential concomitant and condition for that unity. (IMO, the lack of meaningful church discipline in most modern congregations is as serious a problem for the church as its obvious fragmented disunity.)

I've said earlier that nobody seems to have any practical idea of how any of us, as individuals, can make much of a tangible contribution towards the unity of believers. But that's not entirely true, since although we don't make decisions for others about they behave, we do make such decisions for ourselves; and there are things we do or don't do that can tangibly contribute to the Church's unity. (Yes, our individual contribution will be on a small scale; but large-scale effects can ultimately result from the cumulative pooling of many small-scale actions in the same direction.) Hopefully, my next post will offer some practical suggestions for individual actions promoting Christian unity.

In my previous post, I spoke of an intention to "offer some practical suggestions for individual actions promoting Christian unity." I don't have many, and some of them are actually more about adopting a mindset than about outward "actions." But mindsets have practical consequences; and I pose these suggestions for consideration.

Until fairly recently, I used to describe myself religiously as an "Arminian." My theology hasn't changed, and it still can be described as Arminian. IMO, there's nothing wrong with using descriptive terms for theological positions as a shorthand to facilitate discussion. But describing a theological position isn't the same thing as adopting it as your essential religious identity. Our essential religious identity needs to be Christian, purely and simply. If we genuinely think of ourselves in those terms, it has positive consequences for Christian unity; and if we actually describe ourselves in those terms, it gets easier to think in them.

Related to this, until recently I've often described myself as a "Protestant." For some Christians, use of that term is a way of self-identifying with the faith of the 16th-century Reformers. But when the general usage of the term in the Western world in 2025 characterizes people like Bultmann and Tillich as "Protestant" theologians, the term has long since ceased to stand for anything in terms of positive affirmation. It's now simply a catch-all term that only means "professing Christian but NOT Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)." To my mind, defining ourselves in the purely negative sense of what we aren't leaves much to be desired. And given that some of our genuinely-saved brothers and sisters, with whom God wants us to be in unity and vice versa, are found in the Catholic and Orthodox communions, the term becomes more problematical. There are already enough doctrinal challenges to this kind of unity without adopting a tribal name that says to these fellow believers, "I define myself as not like you, and if you want to be in union with me, you'll need to jettison and repudiate your whole identity." Embracing our common identity as Christians doesn't make that kind of exclusionary statement. To my mind, that's a convincing reason for retiring the designation "Protestant."

(That might evoke the question, what about the terms "classical Christian" or "evangelical Christian?" I admit that I continue to describe myself as both, in contexts where I'm introducing myself to non-Christians. But, going back to the point made in message 5, that's not a tribal distinction setting me apart from other Christians. It simply means believing in the Christian gospel and accepting the authority of the Christian Scriptures, so it embraces all believers within the parameters spoken of above. The people it distinguishes us from are those who are outside those parameters, but who the non-Christian world nevertheless lumps together with us as in some sense "Christian": "Christian atheists," "nominal Christians," Deists who call themselves "Christians," etc.)

A more tangible action I'd recommend is in the area of our prayer life. There's certainly nothing wrong with praying collectively for everyone in our particular congregation. But I would suggest that we ought also to pray collectively for all the Christian believers, and all those entrusted with Christian leadership, in out locality. (And one thing we ought seriously to pray for is Christian unity, worldwide and locally, taking to heart Jesus' teaching in Luke 18:1-8 if the answer seems slow in coming.)

Finally, in the present divided state of the Church, neither I nor anyone else have a right to dictate to other believers what congregation to fellowship with. That's a decision that needs to be made with the guidance of God, in which each person needs to be persuaded in his/her own mind. But if your community has a congregation which welcomes all born-again believers who live godly lives to its fellowship, I would urge you to prayerfully considering uniting with it and supporting it with your spiritual and material gifts. Every such fellowship is a testimony to, and a germinal seed for, what God desires for His church as a whole.

The short book The Church of God As Revealed in Scripture by Arlo F. Newell, and my review of it, here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... , both deal in part with, or bear on, the subject of this thread. I've linked to my review in this group earlier, on our reviews thread; but given its relevance to this discussion in particular, I thought it would be worthwhile to share the link here as well.

Just now, I've shared my three-star review, here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... , of this 1921 biography, Birth of A Reformation - Life and Labors of D.S. Warner by Andrew L. Byers (which I read back in 1975) on our reviews thread. But it's worth linking to it here as well, because it's very relevant for our topic here.

I am going to reply in this because over the past few weeks, my respect for Werner has gone up so much, that I just don't like seeing all his hard work go unacknowledged.

About Werner, I will say, you are very knowledgeable, learned, thoughtful, passionate about Christian thought, and are asking all the big questions, but you write such large blocky researched posts....its hard to read them all and form meaningful comments, cause there is so much.

About me. I am Catholic, and like being Catholic, but more so, I am a follower of Christ. Since, I expect most here are not Catholic (but are also Followers of Christ), I am sure I have a different way of looking at the truth of it all, than most of you.

I am also someone who has had many debates, and written many long forum posts, and must say...for me, I feel that is something more of the past. I am an author now, and I kind of protect my energy a lot more in my older years. A 20 year me would do all the research, and strive for accuracy, but the 50 year old me tries not to get into an endless series of long-winded posts. I will try to say a lot while keeping it brief (But I am not sure I can with Werner ;)).

As a Catholic, we pray for unity often. It is a staple of the mass and the intent of the Church. We are all one bread, one body, throughout the earth, and I, personally, would like to see less division among Christian's and more unity, but as far as all of us reuniting under one banner, I think the ship has already sailed on that. I don't think, barring the second coming, that there will be a reunification of all Christians into one denomination. I am accepting of this. As I move through the world, I find I encounter more non-Christians than Christians, and my attitude is, I will appreciate all the help I can get. I am far more concerned that the message of Christ reaches the non-believers than caring a lot about whether you think some bunch of differences means this Christian group is right, and that one is wrong.

My answer to the question of how do we bring about unity, is along the lines of how do we get any interested in the faith. Be a good follower, know your stuff, be prayerful, be godly, and be Christ-like. There is a saying, you will know we are Christian by our love, so be loving. Be a good example. And reach out to others.

I can't say that has always worked out for me. But, its the only way I know.

I'm gonna cherry pick some of the above and see if I can give some worthy thoughts ;)

Related to this, until recently I've often described myself as a "Protestant." For some Christians, use of that term is a way of self-identifying with the faith of the 16th-century Reformers. But when the general usage of the term in the Western world in 2025 characterizes people like Bultmann and Tillich as "Protestant" theologians, the term has long since ceased to stand for anything in terms of positive affirmation. It's now simply a catch-all term that only means "professing Christian but NOT Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox)."

I think a better term may be 'I am a follower of Christ'. To say 'I am Christian', while it means, I am one who believes in Christ, it also carries implications of belonging to a denomination or a team. When I hear this term, I tend to think some protestant denomination, of which, there are many, and some are fairly squirrely by today's standards (Though I tend to assign one of the major ones, and not the smaller split off ones). To say, 'I am a follower of Christ', to me carries connotations of, I follow Christ regardless of what that means to my denomination. If tomorrow, I was shown all my denomination said was false, I would abandon it and go where Christ wanted me.

We all have a tendency towards tribal loyalty, which we can be tempted to unconsciously place above loyalty to God's Kingdom or to truth.

I think this is just a truth of the human condition. When one has 'locked in' it is near an impossible feat to reason them out of it. This carries over into more than just faith, or denomination. I wonder all the time if the stuff I believe and defend is the stuff I should be believing or defending, but I choose to believe, and that carries some consequence. Sometimes, I defend it only because I choose to follow Christ. I will say, as I said above, I talk mostly to non-believers, and to be honest, I find them more open than most Christians. Some of us Christian types are really dug in.

And many Christians are so adverse to hearing a message different from the one they grew up around, that they almost bury their head in the sand in an effort to 'hear no evil' less it permeate them. That is a disservice. In trying to avoid the bad stuff of the world, and in an adherence to remaining pure and unshaken, you are not truly preparing for Christ's mission. I tend to see this as a form of making sure 'I am saved' but not willing to risk losing that to bring others along to.

"All of the Christians in [locality X] couldn't possibly worship in the same building; there are too many of us. Therefore, disunity is our only practical option, and not a negative at all."

I've encountered some strange notions about where to worship, but I've not heard any ever really concerned that we were not all in the same building. I would think an organized religion would handle this with their core doctrines and beliefs. There are some sects out there that have very strange notions of what it all means, to the degree, I would not really call them main-stream Christians (Or maybe even aligned with Christ's mission). They probably never go into one of those buildings that cater to their more organized sisters.

"We all have different likes and dislikes, different tastes, different theological ideas, and different ethnicities and class backgrounds; and we all pretty much prefer to hang out with people like us. Worshipping with people who aren't much like us would take us out of our comfort zone, and probably even be irritating. Living the Christian life is much smoother and less stressful if we sort ourselves out into groups of similar tastes, ideas, backgrounds, etc., and don't mix with those who are different."

This is part of why I like being Catholic. The Catholic Church does not care much what I think about it. Its not a debate about my different theological ideas, Its kind of on me to work out the discrepancy. I could, I suppose, bring it up, and maybe get some traction, but I dont often feel that, and that is all in the weeds anyway. I like that they don't change much. They have their stuff figured out.

In my current church, different ethnicities and class backgrounds is not a problem. It is all in there. I think my current Pastor comes from Nigeria. He is a great guy, but I am quite sure he has nothing in common with me, and how I was brought up--other than, we are both Catholic.

Finally, in the present divided state of the Church, neither I nor anyone else have a right to dictate to other believers what congregation to fellowship with. That's a decision that needs to be made with the guidance of God, in which each person needs to be persuaded in his/her own mind.

I cant argue with that. To force belief is not belief at all, which is kind of going to be my answer in the Free Will thread if I ever read through it all ;) While I would like unity, if the cost is something less than a free choice, I cannot support it. I don't think that would be God's way.

I think that is enough for now. If you are a Christian, that is good enough for me. If you are not, I hope maybe we can inspire you.

P, Pherson wrote: "I am going to reply in this because over the past few weeks, my respect for Werner has gone up so much, that I just don't like seeing all his hard work go unacknowledged."

Patrick, you're sweet; thanks for your kind words! You definitely have given us some worthy thoughts, and I appreciate your wise, thoughtful and irenic tone.

P. Pherson wrote: "...as far as all of us reuniting under one banner, I think the ship has already sailed on that. I don't think, barring the second coming, that there will be a reunification of all Christians into one denomination."

I don't exactly hope for a reunification of all Christians into one denomination, if we define a denomination as a supra-local organization with a central office, human leaders with supra-local authority by virtue of their title in the organization, a bureaucracy, and a binding doctrinal statement written by uninspired humans. To my mind, denominations in that sense are part of the problem, not just because we have way too many of them (though we certainly do!), but even if we could reduce them all down to one. We're called to build the organic Body of Christ, not a particular human organization; and while I realize that we won't agree on all the details of our theology until the second coming (because we all have different perspectives, experiences, backgrounds, degrees of knowledge and maturity, presuppositions, etc.), my hope is that we could all come to recognize that what binds us together is far important than the disputable differences. Whether or not that hope will be realized before the second coming, I don't know. Humanly speaking, I admit that the prospects don't look good. But that kind of recognition of unity has to come from the action of God; and that's something Jesus prayed for, and doubtless continues to make intercession for, so it has that going for it.

I do see your point about the meaning of "follower of Christ," and I suppose it would be possible for secular people to misinterpret "Christian" as some sort of a denominational tag. Any kind of self-designation is open to misinterpretation; and even "I follow Christ" is a claim that can be used in a sectarian way, as Paul noted in I Corinthians 1:10-13 that some of those he was writing to were doing. But I'd say that both "Christian" and "follower of Christ" are terms that all believers in Christ (hopefully!) can potentially get behind. (At least more so than "Protestant!")

P. Pherson wrote: "As a Catholic, we pray for unity often. It is a staple of the mass and the intent of the Church. We are all one bread, one body, throughout the earth...."

In I Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul spoke of the "one loaf" in the Lord's Supper, of which all partake, as an expression of our unity in the one body of Christ (and though he doesn't state it explicitly, the implication is that partaking of the one cup similarly expresses unity). This should be a powerful witness to the essential unity of believers wherever Christians observe the Lord's Supper (though I think our use of pre-packaged individual wafers and individual cups tends to obscure it!)

P. Pherson wrote: "As I move through the world, I find I encounter more non-Christians than Christians, and my attitude is, I will appreciate all the help I can get. I am far more concerned that the message of Christ reaches the non-believers than caring a lot about whether you think some bunch of differences means this Christian group is right, and that one is wrong.

My answer to the question of how do we bring about unity, is along the lines of how do we get any interested in the faith. Be a good follower, know your stuff, be prayerful, be godly, and be Christ-like. There is a saying, you will know we are Christian by our love, so be loving. Be a good example. And reach out to others....

Some of us Christian types are really dug in. And many Christians are so adverse to hearing a message different from the one they grew up around, that they almost bury their head in the sand in an effort to 'hear no evil' less it permeate them. That is a disservice. In trying to avoid the bad stuff of the world, and in an adherence to remaining pure and unshaken, you are not truly preparing for Christ's mission. I tend to see this as a form of making sure 'I am saved' but not willing to risk losing that to bring others along too."

Well said!

I have been back and forth on the differences in the past, and after many long discussions, I am not sure I've seen anyone change on that. In fact, I have found some of them surprising that the issues between faiths were so strong.

For me, I tend to ask, is this thing one which we are not agreeing a matter of salvation or not, and often I have to say no...or rather, something along the lines of, even though you think such and such which I think is not true, I don't think it will stop you from getting into heaven, so...I can ease off.

But...I mean, somethings I won't accept, and we can fight about it if you like ;)

In the Catholic faith, as I am sure you are aware, those little wafers would never get confused as unimportant to our essential unity.

Any rate, the world is full of things to fight about. But I do kind of see it as the job is out there, not between us.

P. Pherson wrote: "For me, I tend to ask, is this thing one which we are not agreeing a matter of salvation or not, and often I have to say no...or rather, something along the lines of, even though you think such and such which I think is not true, I don't think it will stop you from getting into heaven, so...I can ease off."

I think that sense of proportion was what Paul was getting at in Romans 14:1, when he counseled the believers against "passing judgment on disputable matters." He recognizes that the Christian community has parameters; the fact that the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" is to place saving faith (that is, trust/allegiance --which presupposes repentance from sin) in Christ is not, for the Christian, "disputable." But many things which sincere Christians may believe really are disputable.

P. Pherson wrote: "But...I mean, somethings I won't accept, and we can fight about it if you like ;) "

You and I don't like to fight over theology; but a problem for the Church (using that term to denote the whole body of believers), even going back to the first century, is that there are a fair number of people who do. So it's tempting, and easy for some to rationalize. After all, the New Testament writings all presuppose that growing in our understanding of God's word and the Christian life, beyond the bare understanding we started with, is a good thing. And, to be sure, we can grow through teaching and exhortation from other believers, especially from those who are better grounded in their understanding than we are. To discuss matters of Divine truth, even controversial ones, in an attitude of mutual love and truth-seeking, can be a means of growth in understanding. (Indeed, that's very much the hope behind the discussions in this group!) But that's not a mandate to engage in divisive arguing, hectoring, and denial of Christian fellowship.

Scriptures such as Titus 3:9-11 warn us against "controversies," "arguments," and "quarrels" (which are said to be "foolish," "unprofitable and useless") about such disputable things as our personal interpretations of the Mosaic Law, and counsel us to avoid those who push that kind of aggressive disputation to the point of causing division in the church instead of unity. That's very different from friendly discussion of different opinions within the context of our treasured unity as brethren in God's family.

There is, to be sure, a God-ordained ministry given to the body of Christ for the purpose of building us up into "the unity of the faith" and "knowledge of the Son of God," with the goal of having us all reach the same mature understanding of God's counsel that Christ has (Ephesians 4:11-13). But God's call of individuals for this purpose, if genuine, will be recognized by others in the body (see, for instance, Acts 13:1-3). It's not a call that's to be confused with a personal desire for self-promotion, manifesting in a lot of chutzpah and a big mouth; nor is it a mandate to ram our personal opinions down the throats of others.

One might ask, what would that mean in practice? As applied to the preaching ministry as it exists today (which, insofar as it has a New Testament basis, derives from the offices of prophet and evangelist, the one proclaiming the counsel of God and the other proclaiming the Gospel message), it means that the content of what's preached should hew very closely to the plain meaning of the Bible, and eschew disputable theological speculations. It's on sound ground when it proclaims who God is, what salvation is and how to receive it; exhorts us to see life and the world from the biblical perspective, to cultivate Christian virtue and live in obedience to God's plain commands; and calls out behaviors and attitudes that the Bible plainly tells us are sinful. But it's out of line when the pulpit is used to proclaim the preacher's own disputable opinions and theological hobbyhorses, or to attack other groups of believers.

IMO, the teaching ministry of the church is where we can come to grips with building on the biblical basics to get into the "solid food" of Christian truth, including disputable matters (Hebrews 5:12-14, I Corinthians 3:1-2). But the controlling, agreed-upon consensus authority in that setting is the Bible, not the human teacher (Acts 17:11); and teachers should always be prepared to distinguish between their own opinions and absolute facts, and to allow for discussion, questions, and reasoned disagreements. (All of that is part of the process of how we learn together as a body.)

The April 2025 issue of First Things contains the most recent statement issued by the Christian group Evangelicals and Catholics Together, "The Pillar and Foundation of Truth," a serious reflection on the importance of unity in the Church, which will only be perfect in heaven, but which remains our goal in this world though we don't experience it in its fullness. You can read the entire statement here: https://firstthings.com/the-pillar-an... .

Here's the link to our new thread on "Church discipline," since that's a topic which is mentioned above: https://www.`.com/topic/show/23198925... .

In the fall of 2025, Southern Baptist theologian Roger E. Olson wrote a blog post critical of non-denominational churches, here: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog... . Obviously, I disagree with him; but I've linked to the post because I think he expresses widely held ideas on the subject, and sometimes makes legitimate points. As time permits in the coming weeks/months, I hope to respond to and interact with his post, in the spirit of truth-seeking together.

In order to completely (or at least better) understand Olson's thought, it's necessary to also read his second blog post on the subject, here: https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog... , where he attempts to authoritatively define the word "denomination." In my subsequent comments, I'll try to respond to both posts, note where he does contribute worthwhile thoughts or at least highlight important issues, and hopefully untangle some of what I see as fallacies in his assumptions.

It sounds like his complaint is that many churches are calling themselves non-denominational when in fact they have denominational affiliation that can be sniffed out.

As a mental exercise, I love denominations too, and I am sure that many of them do good work, but I don't love them if they distract and confuse, and more importantly, proport things that are just not true. I am mostly interested in what is true. All of the many denominations are fine, and bring people to Christ in their own way, but there are reasons they are not all the same. Some of them are wrong, and there is no escaping it. Either Calvin is right about predestination, or he isn't. Either Catholics are right about the Eucharist, or they are not.

In this world, with so many different people, with so many different minds and thoughts, its both easy to pull them away by the seams of their incorrect beliefs, and difficult to know which is the truest message.

Of course, I am happy when any believer finds Christ, but I am more happy when fall into correct obedience to his will, and understand what it means to say 'not my will, but yours.'

Perhaps it is true that having 40000 denominations is the best way to have the biggest net, but when one church can have gay marriages, and another calls them sin, the message is diluted, and Christianity becomes lost in a giant confusopoly.

This is something that I fear only God can sort out. I just hope along the way there is not a lot of 'depart from me, for I did not know you' waiting at the end for those thought they were doing good by God, but actually weren't.

This schism (perhaps that's a bit harsh) is something I see almost every day. There is a nearby church that has a series of social justice quotes on its signboard. I have never seen a scripture or even a reference to the Word on it.

What good is filling the pews when those people are still lost?

I have a similar church down the street from me. Many rainbow flags, BLM banners, signs about some social issue or another, but never anything biblical. I can only imagine the mindset of those who attend. I fear they may not like what is actually in the bible...

I wonder what the other churches along the same corner think of them. As there are a lot kind of clustered together there.

On the other hand, if i drive out the other way...there is a church who also has signs, but they are all trying to find funny ways to deliver more biblically aligned messages. I think they do a better job.

P. Pherson wrote: "It sounds like his complaint is that many churches are calling themselves non-denominational when in fact they have denominational affiliation that can be sniffed out."

That is one of the complaints that he emphasizes quite a bit. And yes, it's quite true (and worth pointing out), that there are local congregations which present themselves as non-denominational when they're actually part of a denomination. But that does not, in itself, discredit the legitimacy of non-denominationalism as a goal, any more than the fact that there are local groups (like the slogan-bedecked examples in messages 18-19), which present themselves as "Christian," when in fact they're not, discredits the legitimacy of genuine Christianity. Of course, false advertising like this spreads confusion. But the lesson this teaches isn't that "Christianity is bad!" or "non-denominationalism is bad!" Rather, it's that if you want to belong to a church that's genuinely Christian, and/or genuinely non-denominational, you need to ask serious questions up front to ascertain how things really are.

A more substantive argument he makes is that a single nondenominational congregation doesn't have the resources to found (and by implication, sustain), "Christian institutions of many kinds." (Presumably he means colleges, missions, charitable ministries, etc.) These, he says, are founded by (and, he implies, only by) denominations. But that's a patently fallacious argument. Yes, this kind of cooperative work will require a much broader base of support than an individual congregation (unless we're talking about a huge mega-church), whether or not it's part of a denomination, could hope to muster. But numerous examples of all of those types of institutions exist, and thrive, which were NOT founded by any denomination, and are not associated with or controlled by any denomination. Instead, they were founded, through the leading of the Holy Spirit, by individuals or groups of individuals with a heart for that particular work, and are supported, through the same leading, by multiple local congregations and Christian individuals, over wide (even in some cases worldwide) areas, regardless of denominations. The overall quality of the work of these institutions, and of their impact on the world, is in no way inferior or secondary to the overall quality and impact of the work of similar institutions that were founded by and continue to be funded by some particular denomination. As Watchman Nee recognized nearly a century ago (see message 2 above), Christian cooperation in the universal work of the church is necessary. But we don't have to create denominational structures and bureaucracies to achieve it.

Kevin wrote: "There is a nearby church that has a series of social justice quotes on its signboard. I have never seen a scripture or even a reference to the Word on it."

P. Pherson wrote: "I have a similar church down the street from me. Many rainbow flags, BLM banners, signs about some social issue or another, but never anything biblical."

In my previous message, I used the entities described in these quotes as examples of organizations that claim to be Christian and actually are not. After I'd posted, I realize that I might have jumped to a judgmental conclusion. To be fair, a concern for (genuine) social justice is inherent in Christian faith; and the use of the rainbow as a Christian symbol, based on the flood story in Genesis, goes back a long way. And new and immature or poorly instructed Christians surely can hold some drastically wrong ideas.

That said, in the current U.S. religious context, any "church" making ostentatious and strident claims to be on the side of "social justice," as a form of "virtue" (as defined by the secular power elite) signaling, would almost always be found to redefine "justice" in terms that have nothing to do with that concept as the Bible defines it, and that are actually inimical to it. And in the context of that sort of signaling, the rainbow is virtually always perverted into a symbol celebrating homosexual activity.

For Christians who accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, sex acts outside of male-female marriage, and genital mutilations to "transition" to the opposite sex are not "disputable" gray areas. They are sinful behaviors that the Holy Spirit clearly witnesses against; and any religious entity that organizes itself to promote them is in active defiance of God and rebellion against Him. No responsible Christian should participate in such an entity. (Cf. I Corinthians 5:11, 6:9-11.)

The principle that a genuine church cannot celebrate and support sinful behavior is moral, not political; it has nothing to do Right vs. Left as such, and everything to do with right vs. wrong. By the same token, for instance, "churches" which bar ethnic Jews from being members. as the Reichskirche in Nazi Germany did, or bar blacks from being members, as many in the U.S. did as late as the 1960s (and some still may), are clearly rebelling against the explicit command of God. (Colossians 3:11.) In so doing, they demonstrate that they are not legitimate congregations of the universal church; and responsible Christians should not affiliate with them either.

Patrick, starting in the second paragraph of message 17, you put your finger squarely on the root of the problem! Most denominational divisions among Christians today are driven by different beliefs. If every Christian believer agreed now with each other on every single point of theology (which seems to be the ultimate goal of the building up of the church, envisioned as "unity in the faith" in Ephesians 4:11-13, all of which is a single sentence), we'd have far fewer if any separate denominations.

All of us in this group recognize that "Christian unity" doesn't mean union with non-Christians, and that the difference between Christians and non-Christians is what they believe (or don't believe) about Jesus Christ as our resurrected Lord and Savior from sin through our repentance and faith in Him. If somebody doesn't agree that Jesus is resurrected Lord and Savior, doesn't repent, and doesn't place faith in Him for salvation, then there's no basis for unity with him/her. But if we agree on those essentials, there's at least a possibility of co-participation in a community of faith. The extent to which that possibility can be realized depends on how much diversity in non-essentials we're each willing to tolerate in the same face-to-face congregation.

For me, a parameter has to be acknowledgement of the authority of the Old and New Testaments, as generally recognized by the consensus of God's people, guided by the Holy Spirit, over a period of centuries. As a minimum, this has to be at least the 66 books commonly accepted by all bodies of believers: the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox and Coptic and other Eastern churches, and all Protestant bodies (at least those which are actually Christian), as well as other believers who don't claim any of those labels. (The claim is sometimes met with that the Council of Nicaea arbitrarily imposed the 27-book canon of the New Testament; but the council's own language rebuts that claim. All the council did was acknowledge that those 27 books were already "everywhere recognized" as the word of God; the church of God had already reached its consensus, over a period of more than two centuries of sifting documents for the voice of God.) If there is no objective and authoritative revelation of the will of God outside of our own opinions, then we're at the mercy of our own fallibility and sin-shaped desires, and perpetually doomed to a "giant confusopoly" with no map out of it. The Bible claims to be that revelation, and Jesus and the apostles accepted it as such. Acceptance of its authority, to my mind, is a minimal practical recognition of Jesus' Lordship; and the church can exist as his body only so long as it's under his headship and authority.

Once we have a common acceptance of Scriptural authority within a face-to-face community of faith, then we have a basis to build up the body of Christ upon, to get to "unity in the faith." As the apostle Paul expresses it, that seems to be a process --that is to say, we're not already there when we start out. But we have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip us, through preaching and teaching (and example). If we limit our fellowship to hear only preachers and teachers who tell us what we want to hear, or expel from our midst any brothers or sisters who aren't as far along towards the unity of faith as we think we are, it seems to me that we're sabotaging the process more so than participating in it. What do some of the rest of you think?

I apologize Werner, I want to give all of this due attention, but I have started back to work, and not been able to get goodreads to work there yet. They are also keeping me busy at the moment, but when I catch up, I will have more time to sort things out.

I do think the intention was always unity, and the splitting of the faithful into so many denominations was not something that Christ would have wanted. But I am not sure that God, in his ultimate wisdom, does not find purpose in it. Certainly, there are many of faith who would be further from God's bosom if the only one that existed was one that held values they dont agree with. I am just not in a place to know.

I love being Catholic, but I am not always happy with everything that comes from Rome. But I believe in their role in the world, and their place in God's heart.

I am not really sure why the Protestants reject the seven or so books of the Old Testament that the Catholics have. Its not like, if they were included, they prove Catholicism. There is nothing to fear in them. But, the message is not greatly diluted due to their absence as well.

While all of us would agree that the Bible is the perfect revelation of God, it remains true that perfect scripture without perfect interpretation is still subject to imperfect understanding. As a writer, I can say, that the written word is often super tricky, as many words have more than one meaning, and so it is very hard to exactly say anything. Let alone expect many brains to all read it the correct way.

I care mostly about what leads to salvation. I can argue up and down about why this faith of that is missing the mark on something, but does it really matter? I know many great lovers of Jesus who would question much of what us Catholics do. I've heard many times that we worship Mary, and worship idols, and the eucharist is not what we think. But you know...if you don't wish to venerate Mary, and appreciate the crucifix, or the stations of the cross, I don't really think that keeps you from heaven.

My understanding of what is really required is just a acceptance of Jesus as the savior, a repentant heart, and a desire to be obedient to his will. If Mary is there as well, that is just a bonus. I'd not want to be in heaven without her ;)

I fear that somethings are just great separations from God. In our faith, we would say mortal sins vs venial ones. That some faiths openly embrace mortal sins, IMO, need to be rejected and even scorned, with the hope that the faithful there will abandon them, or they may change. But, I will leave it open to God's plan that he has a use for them.

I think Christians often do a poor job of loving the sinner and hating the sin. Its hard to tell one with same sex attraction that its sinful, when their whole identity is wrapped up in it. That is a hard way to win converts.

I pray for them. Sometimes that is all I can do. I just want everyone to go to heaven.

Anyway...I have not read to the linked articles with the right understanding yet. If it is true that non-denominational churches have a hard time getting the notable schools and hospitals and such, I am not sure that matters. If you are not big, then help in little ways. And keep on, loving on.

Patrick, wonderful and helpful post; thanks! I'll comment further later; but I'm hoping to get two book reviews in this weekend, so that will keep me a little tied up.

P. Pherson wrote: "I am not really sure why the Protestants reject the seven or so books of the Old Testament that the Catholics have. Its not like, if they were included, they prove Catholicism. There is nothing to fear in them. But, the message is not greatly diluted due to their absence as well."

Yes, the "Seven Books" (to avoid using loaded terminology!) don't contain explicit Roman Catholic theological ideas as such, nor really add significantly to the message of the 39 Old Testament books that are universally received by both the Christian and Jewish communities, either. The controversy about them comes from an altogether different cause, for which I might be able to provide a bit of factual background.

The last few of the 39 books that make up the Hebrew Bible were written in the fifth century B.C. After this, a gradual process of discernment went on in the Jewish community (particularly in Palestine, where most Jews lived), similar to the later process of discerning the New Testament canon in the church, to assess what writings were to be regarded as the inspired word of God. By the time of Christ, and even well before, although the Sadducees and the Samaritans still accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture, there is evidence from the New Testament, the Talmud (which preserves oral tradition from the first century and before) and the still older Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach that the majority of Jews in Palestine and even outside of it had a developed concept of an authoritative body of Scripture including the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Josephus, in his Contra Apionem, lists the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible as composing this Scripture (his count is 22 books, but he counts some "books" as one that we divide into more units; for instance, in his count the 12 Minor Prophets are one book, since they were normally all written on a single scroll); and he's explicit in declaring that none of these were written after the reign of Artaxerxes I, who died in 424 B.C. In 90 A.D., the Jewish Council of Jamnia affirmed these 39 as the only canonical ones; that decision stood in the Jewish community ever since, but like the later decision at Nicaea, it appears to simply be a re-stating of a consensus already widely accepted. So the 39-book Old Testament seems to be the one Jesus read from, and the authority of which he affirmed.

Unlike these books, the "Seven Books" were mostly written in Greek (The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach was originally written in Hebrew), and much later than 424 B.C.; they appear to date from no earlier than the second, and some from the first, century A.D. According to some Jewish sources, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that we call the Septuagint (LXX for short) was made in Alexandria, Egypt in the reign of Ptolemy II, who died in 246 B.C. The actual process of translation was probably more piecemeal, and probably not completed until around 132 B.C. Our earliest complete LXX manuscript copies date from the fourth century A.D., and these contain the Seven Books. The LXX would have become the Bible of the mostly Greek-speaking Gentile church as early as the time of the Apostle Paul. What's not fully clear historically is whether a.) the LXX circulated as a single codex that far back, and if so whether the Seven Books would always have been bound as part of it; and b.) whether even the Jewish community in Alexandria considered the Seven Books canonical.

Some early Christians, including Clement of Alexandria, did regard them as Scripture. However, many others (including Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius) did not, and stated so. The Council of Nicaea took no position on the subject; and Jerome, the original translator of the Vulgate, though he included them in his translation, explicitly regarded them as non-canonical and not fit for confirmation of dogma, though fit reading for personal edification. In the 1500s, most Protestants followed Jerome's view; but the Council of Trent (1545-1563) committed the Roman Catholic Church to accepting them as Scripture.

That's a thumbnail sketch of the background of the question. I don't know if that helps to explain where both sides of the canonicity controversy are coming from, but I hope it helps at least somewhat!

P. Pherson wrote: "While all of us would agree that the Bible is the perfect revelation of God, it remains true that perfect scripture without perfect interpretation is still subject to imperfect understanding. As a writer, I can say, that the written word is often super tricky, as many words have more than one meaning, and so it is very hard to exactly say anything. Let alone expect many brains to all read it the correct way."

Here, of course, you put your finger on the nub of the problem. As the Apostle Peter recognized, some --though not all-- things in Scripture (in context, he was referring to Paul's letters, but the point applies more broadly) are "hard," though not impossible, to understand. (II Peter 3:16.) Because the minds of all mortal humans are imperfect, none of us infallibly interpret the Bible, even though its truths are infallible. But despite this, Luke commended the Bereans because, humanly fallible though they were, they "examined the Scriptures" to test Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11).

Although written communication doesn't ensure perfect understanding, God chose to communicate revelation to us in that form, obviously knowing that understanding it would require an interpretive process. Before that, He communicated orally in human language, and IMO Genesis 1 suggests that He created human language itself, and that capacity for verbal thought and communication is part of the created image of God. Language is not a perfect means of communication, but it IS a viable means for it, and better and more objective than its absence would be.

The basic message that Christ died for our sins, was raised to eternal life and gives forgiveness and eternal life to those who repent and believe in him is not ambiguous. Neither are the love commands, or the basic ethical teachings of the Bible. Other parts of the Bible may be more ambiguous. God, of course, would like us to understand these too (II Timothy 2:15, 3:14-16). That's why He provides a teaching ministry in the church, though no single teacher is infallible. We all need each other's perspectives, input and knowledge, as we study the Word in humility; and the goal is to steadily grow in our understanding of and obedience to it.

Reading the articles again, I don't see where he is saying they don't have the ability to found and sustain christian institutions.

My real fear for them is they likely have weak, or misunderstood theology. But, I don't seek out non-denominational stuff to investigate it very deeply. It really does not take more than a strike or two to start calling into question all of it.

I hold out that the Lord will find purpose in all of it. Even if I don't know where it all leads.

I did go investigate the schism on the seven books. I found a pretty good article on it, but I am not sure I can find it again. I'll post it if I do.

In the interest of Christian Unity, its just one more thing to remain divided about.

P. Pherson wrote: "Reading the articles again, I don't see where he is saying they don't have the ability to found and sustain christian institutions."

The part where I got that from was in the third paragraph of the first article, where he says (speaking about denominations) that "I love that they have done great things such as founding Christian institutions of many kinds that no 'independent, non-denominational' stand-alone church could found." (In other words, he's implying that outside of denominations, no inter-Christian cooperation to found and sustain institutions can possibly exist, which is a demonstrably false claim on its face.)

Like you, I trust the Lord to find purpose and work for good in all circumstances, even in those caused by human folly and disobedience. (Thankfully, we're serving a BIG God, who weaves His tapestry on a very broad loom!) And yes, any time you find Internet articles that bring helpful thoughts to bear on subjects we're discussing, definitely link to them. That goes back to the idea I shared at the end of message 26, to the effect that learning to understand God's Word takes contributions from all of us.

Building on that thought, in recent years I've been more and more struck by something I'd never given much thought to earlier. (I don't know if I can express it clearly, but I'll try to!) Most of us are familiar with the idea (even if we haven't read any) of books on what in academia we call "systematic theology," the discipline that takes the data found in the Bible, plus the insights from reason informed by the Bible, and systematically tries to lay it all out in an organized framework that distills --or, at least is, meant to-- exactly the content of all the important beliefs that God wants us to hold, clearly answering all questions in unambiguous fashion.

This isn't necessarily an illegitimate enterprise for Christians to engage in. The problem is, there are many such books, and they generally disagree wildly with each other. These disagreements are caused by the degree to which Scripture is ambiguous; they would be eliminated if God would have inspired one of the New Testament writers to write a definitive systematic theology text. He could have done that, if He wanted to. Once that sinks in, the corollary that becomes inescapable is that He didn't want to. That leads to the question, why didn't He?

God didn't provide us with a canned answer to that; and I don't pretend to be privy to any secret inside information about His reason or reasons. That said, my working hypothesis is that He wants to make us exercise our brains, exercise our spiritual discernment and sensitivity, get serious in our reading and study of His Word, and learn to listen to and value each other's insights, rather than being spoon-fed answers that we may not internalize deeply (because we didn't make any effort to get them), and which we may not be able to fully understand because our spiritual maturity isn't great enough yet to pick up on some points. (And we mature at different rates, and through different experiences.)

This doesn't mean that systematic understanding of truth is unimportant; on the contrary, it's our goal (Ephesians 4:11-13). But if I correctly understand that passage, it's a common goal that we're supposed to be working towards together in an undivided fellowship, which takes seriously the fact that our Lord has chosen to bond us together as fellow pilgrims helping each other on the way. We don't get with that program by screaming at each other, "I already KNOW all the truth! If you can't agree with me, get your perverse self out of my sight, and stay away forever --or at least, until you see things my way!"

Yes, I could say, 'you should all be Catholic and here are the twelve reasons why...', but many people are just in many different places in their journey. I am not sure that matters most. Or perhaps, I should say, I think there are many ways to get to heaven, and any path the leads there is okay with me.

However, there are reasons Catholics are not baptists, are not Presbyterians, are not Anglicans. To have unity, those differences are going to have to be hashed out. So, we could engage in conversations over the many differences... You worship Mary...No we don't... We could focus on things that perhaps matter more to salvation, or just find ways to work together.

For the most part, I am fine with anyone who wishes to follow Christ in whatever way they know... But then... There are just some that are clearly led astray. To the point that their denominations embrace of making sin holy, and that they just have bad theology which will injure and not help their followers.

Least, that is my concern about it. I think some of them are worth fighting against (in great debating kind of way), but that may not be the real desire of God. He may just have use for all of them. So I am left in a quandary... Should I just shrug it off, give lip service to something, but take no action? Or do just as you say...banish those perverse selves from my sight?

The only solution I can come up with is pray about it, leave it in God's hands, and hope that when we say "Your will, not mine," that comes about more often in more people.

P. Pherson wrote: "...there are reasons Catholics are not baptists, are not Presbyterians, are not Anglicans. To have unity, those differences are going to have to be hashed out. So, we could engage in conversations over the many differences.... We could focus on things that perhaps matter more to salvation, or just find ways to work together."

Differences in practices and doctrinal beliefs definitely exist among Christians; but they aren't, by themselves, the whole cause of denominational division. For that to happen, there has to also be an assessment in people's minds that a difference is SO important that it overrides all the more basic common beliefs; and SO important that, no, I cannot accept you as part of my congregation, cannot commune with you, cannot share a common life in Christ with you nor work together with you in ministering to others.

Different believers will give different answers to the question of how much conformity to common belief and practice is demanded. The 17th-century split of the Old Believers from the Russian Orthodox Church (which continues today) was occasioned by the latter's introduction of the practice of using three fingers in crossing oneself, as most Orthodox believers outside of Russia did and still do, rather than two as Russian Christians had traditionally done. This innovation was characterized by one Old Believer spokesperson as "godless heresy," while the official church chose to enforce it by executing the recalcitrant. (And no, I'm honestly not making this up.) Most of us in this group, I think, would view this as carrying the insistence on common practice, as a condition for unity, a bit too far. On the other hand, I think we have a basic consensus that we can't be in unity with those who endorse sin, or who reject the Christian gospel and/or the authority of the Bible. Christian unity has to be based on our common repentance from sin, faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, and practical willingness to accept the objective revelation that he endorses.

Most of the disputed areas that cause division among actual believers today, in the cultural contexts most of us operate in, lie between these extremes. Different members of the group may draw their own lines in different places (which is one reason for this discussion!). For my own part, I try not to draw mine in such a way that I would exclude any genuine Christian who's making a good faith effort to walk in obedience to the counsel of God as he/she understands it.

Back in late January, when I linked to Roger Olson's blog posts, I indicated my intention of interacting with these in my later comments. So far, I haven't done much of that; but I haven't forgotten about them!

One problem that arises at the outset, of course, is defining what a "denomination" is (or isn't). In his second blog post, he argues that any group of churches that has "connective tissue" is a "denomination." He doesn't define "connective tissue;" but based on his example (the Churches of Christ, non-instrumental), he sees any group of churches whose members are welcomed in other local congregations when they're traveling, and/or which support common mission projects or contribute to common relief work, as a "denomination." (I'm sure he also regards the house church movement in China, and its off-shoots outside of China, as a "denomination," even though it's the very antithesis of one.) The obvious problem with this definition is that most New Testament scholars, or at least those who are Protestant (Olson, be it noted, is not a biblical scholar of either testament; he's a theologian, which in academia is a distinctly separate discipline) agree that the New Testament church was NOT a "denomination," but all of these sorts of "connective tissue" are evidenced in Acts and in the various New Testament epistles.

A wide variety of local congregations can certainly welcome traveling Christian believers to their fellowship. Wide varieties of local congregations can support various kinds of general Christian work in the world at large. Non-denominational congregations in a locality can join with each other, and even with other congregations of various denominations, to support or sponsor local Christian outreaches (my home community features several examples). Local cooperation, or trans-local interest, fellowship and cooperation, do not constitute denominationalism.

A second marker of denominationalism that Olson posits is the identification of a congregation with a particular humanly-composed doctrinal statement, over and above the Bible itself, which situates the congregation within a particular Christian theological tradition and restricts membership to those in that tradition. IMO, he's on solider ground there. Even if a given congregation has no external organizational connection, an exclusive identification with one faction within the Body of Christ means that congregation is not truly non-denominational, even if it advertises itself as such. If, for instance, a congregation commits all of its members to believe in distinctively Baptist theology, he's correct that it might just as well join a Baptist denomination. (He and I just disagree about whether that sort of exclusivity is a good and God-pleasing thing.)

For our purposes here, I would propose that we think of denominationalism as separation of believers, whom God sees as one in Christ, on the basis of human-made distinctions that have no biblical authorization. (These are usually insistences on agreeing with particular debatable doctrines, but can also be based on racial differences, socio-economic status, etc.)

While devoting one of his two blog posts above to trying to define the word "denomination" (although his appeal to trans-local "connective tissue, as a key aspect of his definition, is a bit vague and could use a definition of its own!), Olson doesn't attempt to define "nondenominational churches" before attacking them. That lack of precision can be a problem. As both Patrick and I noted above, he devotes much space to assailing congregations that conceal a denominational affiliation, or that use the term nondenominational while identifying with one particular brand of theology associated with one denomination or one particular group of them. Those practices should be assailed as a misuse of the terminology; but that says nothing about congregations which aren't concealing an affiliation, nor identifying with any particular factional interpretation of the Bible. If you want to write articles proving that "organically-grown food is BAAAAD for you!" but then spend much of your time demonstrating that some of what's sold as "organic" really isn't genuinely that, your point may be valid, but it does zilch towards actually proving that genuine organic food is bad for you. Olson's blog posts labor under a similar problem.

In my previous post, I proposed a definition of denominationalism which, IMO, gets at the actual heart of what it is. Similarly, I would propose a definition of a nondenominational local congregation as one that has no requirement for membership other than being genuinely saved, and no extra-biblical statement of faith to which members must adhere. It may (and should) care about and pray for the world-wide church, and cooperate in trans-local outreaches; but it is not subject to a trans-local hierarchy, and seeks to exercise no authority over local congregations in other places. Again, I think this is a definition that gets at the heart of the matter. One can argue (and obviously advocates of denominationalism DO argue!) that for the Christians in a locality to join together in this type of congregation is a bad idea. But I don't believe that Olson convincingly makes that case; and in future posts, I hope to explain why he fails to convince me.

Olson's case that actual non-denominational churches (as opposed to mere pretended ones) are a bad idea rests mainly on three assertions: they "often lack clear accountability to anyone outside their organization"; "Very often their preaching and teaching is theologically vague, even generic, to the point that it is shallow", and "Many, if not most, tend to worship in a manner that smacks of entertainment more than reverence." He later adds the comment that he is "very uncomfortable with the “entrepreneurial” style of “doing church” these days", with the implication that this is another widespread characteristic of non-denominational congregations. All of these portrayals are based, he tells us, on his own "experience and study " (in the other blog post linked to above, he makes the point that he served as editor for the 14th edition of The Handbook of Denominations in the United States). His stated case that "...there is something in the “DNA” of independent, non-denominational churches... that is unhealthy" rests entirely on these assertions, and on whatever negative connotations can be construed from them.

An immediately apparent flaw in his indictment is this admission: "Now, are all of them guilty of all... of those weaknesses? I am not saying that." In other words, his post is a general attack on a very disparate world-wide group of local churches sharing a single common feature (non-denominationalism), but supposedly justified by reference to an assortment of other features that "many" or "very many" of them have. These are supposedly caused by the "DNA" of non-denominationalism, even though not all non-denominational congregations exhibit them. On the face of it, this seems to be a dubious basis for his conclusion.

In my future posts, I'll try to consider each of his assertions on their own merits, and then try to place them in what I believe is a more helpful context for consideration.

To consider them first (out of order), I admit that in today's world, the flaws of theologically vague, shallow teaching and a worship style more oriented towards entertainment than reverence probably DO characterize many non-denominational churches. But the problem with this, as an argument for Olson's position, is that the same flaws are every bit as evident in denominational churches. Like Olson's, that observation is based on my own experience and study, which began with being raised in a denomination, and includes seminary training, participation in a wide variety of churches across many decades, wide reading, and interaction with believers from a variety of backgrounds. (I suspect most members of this group have had occasion to make the same observation from your own experience.)

Certain factors in modern culture, which influences believers as well as nonbelievers, contribute to these conditions regardless of denominational labels, or lack of one. One is the decline of intellectual curiosity, and of the desire (and sometimes ability) to read in the general populace. The weakening of congregations as human communities, making people more willing to leave --and church leaders, as a result, more tempted to avoid teachings that might offend someone-- is another. Finally, competition between local congregations, as well as with TV preachers and other substitutes for a local church, tends to create an entertainment-focused strategy and a pared-down, easily digested message. IMO, none of these trends can be laid exclusively at the door of congregations trying to obey the command for biblical inclusivity.

As we reflect on depth and seriousness of teaching in local congregations, one point to consider is that congregational teaching requires teachers. Not every believer in any given congregation has the inclination, knowledge of the Bible and familiarity with its modern application, basic temperament and stable Christian character to be either comfortable or effective in teaching, and God doesn't call every believer to that ministry. One might agree with this, but ask what it has to do with the subject of this thread.

If all of the believers in a particular locality are united in one congregation, then the gifts and time of all of the minority among them who are called to teach are available to the whole body. The whole congregation may not meet in the same place every week, or even often, depending on how large the locality is and how many believers there are; but the whole congregation certainly has a deeper pool of educational resources to draw on than is typically the case in the real-life churches of a given locality.

In our typical everyday reality in the world of divided Christendom, however, there's no such pooling of resources. My home church has perhaps 30-40 adult members. We have one preacher, another licensed preacher who serves in music ministry, a few Sunday school teachers for the children and youth, and one adult Sunday school teacher (me). We do not have a children's church program, because we don't have any volunteers to staff it. But our community has a population of roughly 15,000. It obviously has many more than 30-40 adult genuine believers, but they're divided among dozens of competing congregations (many of which doubtless struggle with their own manpower shortages). The lack of human resources in many of these congregations obviously has a negative effect on their educational programs, as much on those which are affiliated with denominations as on those which aren't. More programs of Christian formation and teaching could be offered if there were more mutual Christian cooperation; but that obvious fact does not influence actual practice. :-(

As indicated above, we're living in times in which both some nondenominational (including so-called "megachurches") and some denominational congregations, and even whole "liberal" denominations, downplay and water down the gospel and Christian truth in general, with the aim of simply getting more warm bodies into pews and keeping them there. But it's more helpful to judge both the nondenominational and denominational models by their best examples --that is, those whose leaders care about Christian truth and Christian formation-- rather than their worst.

A large body of Christian truth --the gospel itself, the love commands and basic classical Christian ethics, the blessed hope of eternal life in Christ, and the basic factual background of the Bible-- is held in common by all Christians. Most observers would agree that nondenominational churches would be as well able to teach this content as any denominational ones. These truths are not "shallow" as such; rather, they're foundational to every truth built upon them, and therefore not unimportant nor dispensable.

Nonetheless, there are super-structures of more elaborate truth built on this foundation, which God wants us ultimately to grasp also (Hebrews 5:12-6:3). Granting that all genuine Christian congregations accept the authority of the Bible and try to teach from it, one might still ask, wouldn't a church that "explains" the Bible's more elaborate teaching with a man-made summary be more capable of imparting this teaching than one which lacks such a guideline? (Olson seems to presuppose that it would.)

Though this might seem counter-intuitive, I would argue that the opposite is true. Everyone in this group, I think, would agree that although it's important that a church teach its members about the more complicated truths in the Bible, rather than just ignoring them, it's even more important that what it teaches be true rather than false. (For instance, nobody would accuse the Jehovah's Witnesses of ignoring complicated issues in their teaching, but none of us would say that most of their teaching is very constructive.) While some group members would say that their own denomination's teaching is true, all of us would agree that by definition, a whole lot of teaching that goes on in a lot of denominational churches is actually false (since mutually contradictory teachings can't both be true). And in every case, the source of the falseness is the a priori assumption that the man-made summary is true, must always be deferred to, and in fact must be accepted as a condition for fellowship before any study of the Bible together even begins.

If the Christians in a given locality decide that they want, a.) for the true teachings of the Bible to be recognized and b.) for those teachings to be imparted to all the believers in the community rather than to just a few of them, I submit that their best strategy (which I believe is also the one modeled in the New Testament) is to gather in one congregation and study the Bible together, in mutual civility and respect for its authority, without a prior man-made determination of what it must say. This needs to be done in an attitude of intellectual humility and willingness to listen to each other.

For me, this subject is not theoretical, but intensely practical. At the request of the congregational leadership, I serve the adult Sunday school class at my church as its teacher (and have served in the same capacity at other times and places by the same request). Our church has no doctrinal statement but the Bible. (We do use quarterly literature, which is purchased by the congregation, from a publishing house associated with the Wesleyan denomination; but our congregation is not part of that denomination, and we treat the quarterly as an aid to discussion, not as an infallible substitute for it.) As a teacher, I try to bring out the essential message(s) of each passage of Scripture that's presented for study, as I see them. I don't dodge complicated issues if they're helpful to the class; I'll share my opinion and the reasons for it, and explain other opinions as appropriate. Rather than do all the talking, I encourage discussion (and you don't have to agree with me in order to be allowed to talk!). In general, I believe the class is helpful to those of us who attend, and that we grow in our understanding of the Bible through it. I'm not saying my teaching methods should be a model for everybody; but I do think this example demonstrates that a congregation can have constructive Bible study without a set doctrinal statement. The crucial goal is to help each person see what the Bible says, not to parrot "what our church teaches," or "what the quarterly says," or "what the teacher says," because those aren't what really matters.

As a class, I think we come to pretty general agreement on the Scriptures we study. Not to hide any information, our congregation is part of the Church of God Reformation Movement (which historically had a lot of common beliefs, because of the way it originated in the late 1800s); so some might say, "Oh yes, but you just agree because you were all raised with those teachings!" But in actual fact, the majority of us, including me, were not; and our consensus position on some points doesn't in fact mirror the historic Reformation Movement "party line." If we had a class which included a lot more sharply diverging positions, and many of these were strongly held, reaching a consensus might be more challenging and take longer; it might even not ever be fully achieved this side of Christ's second coming. But I would maintain that studying together would still be a helpful learning experience through which we could grow in our knowledge of the Word. And I would emphatically deny that this model produces teaching that's theologically vague, generic and shallow.

So, here's my take on Christian unity, which I think is similar to yours, Werner:

(1) There is nothing wrong with a "non-denominational" church on the surface as long as it is preaching the Bible and meeting the requirements set up in the Bible for the organized church. There clearly was meant to be governing boards, that began with the apostles in Jerusalem (i.e., Acts 15), as well as individual church leadership (i.e., 1 Tim 3). Further, different people are called to do different things in the church to help support the church ministry, and all these parts should be working together as a whole (i.e., Rom 12). We are also called to fellowship with other believers (Heb 12:24-25), which I firmly believe is because of what Proverbs 27:17 says (among others).

The problem is that many of these "non-denominational" churches are following one leader--and that leader isn't Christ. Again--not all, but many. You don't have an overall hierarchy with mature Christians at the top of that hierarchy saying, "Hey, you are kind of going off in left field with that teaching," when the leader gets a little out of whack (not to say this can't also happen in denominational churches that allow weak leadership). Most cults are started by one person thinking s/he has the real meaning of the Bible all figured out and not talking to others about it. Or even a group of people who decide they want to be "Christians," but they don't like some of the Bible, so they are going to cut that out or change it. This is where the danger comes.

(2) At one time, I did believe it would be wonderful if all the denominations came together and just followed God, but at this point, especially after reading The Story of the Trapp Family Singers I have come to believe like Maria--different people have different ways of worshiping and following God. We are always going to have Christians at different levels of maturity. Some people need the ritual of saying a prayer that is already written out for them. Others are comfortable praying freely.

I feel I am at a maturity level where I pretty much go with the flow. If the preacher/pastor/minister/priest asks for an "amen," I give it to him unless I don't really feel it or believe I should be saying "Hallelujah" instead--if I am going to say anything. I struggle with the new mass as opposed to old because I frankly don't visit a Catholic church that often, but I still do my best if I am there because I don't want to detract from anyone else's spiritual focus. I don't care if the church is acapella or has a full band doing modern choruses or old hymns. These aren't salvation issues, but some people prefer one over the other and doing something different might detract others from focusing on God.

(3) The other problem I have with coming together as one denomination (and I say denomination because I personally believe that there currently is only one Church, regardless of the denomination), is that many churches and denominations end up the way of the Unitarian Church or (depending on the Pope) the Catholic church when they try to unite everyone. They make concessions on salvation issues.

For example, the Unitarian Church went off the deep-end and tried to incorporate all religions and not just Christianity into it. (John 14:6)

The Catholic church ordains homosexuals if they are "non-practicing." A non-practicing homosexual can still burn with lust and be condemned (Rom 1:26–27) just as a heterosexual who looks at porn can burn with lust outside of a marriage commitment. Neither of these are traits 1 Tim 3 says our leaders should have. It is one thing to be in a church and struggling with sin and getting help from others because you truly want to move past it. It is quite another to be in a leadership or teaching position and struggling with these kinds of sin.

However, these are the concessions that are often made by denominations and churches that are trying to unite everyone under one church.

Finally, there are key differences between denominations that I personally don't feel are salvation issues, but that could become ones. For example: predestination (Calvinists) or not? I personally don't believe in the predestination Calvinists teach, and it could become a salvation issue if someone believes that because they are predestined, they can just ride along in life's stream and don't have to choose to follow God. I also don't believe in the Baptist "once saved always saved" for this same reason.

God has done so much for us that I believe anyone who truly loves and understands His sacrifice would want to do all they can to love and honor and praise Him, but I have seen too many people--people in high places who should have known better--fall and get distracted or self-serving. Predestination, in my opinion, goes against the Great Commission as one example; I also believe "once saved..." goes against the parable of the sower, for example. But if you come to Christ, accept Him as your Savior, and then spend the rest of your life following and serving Him to the best of your ability and using the Bible as your roadmap, Calvinist and Baptist doctrine isn't a salvation issue because you are doing all you need to do to be saved.

Jennifer, thanks for a very thoughtful and helpful post! I'd have commented in response before now, but I've had a lot of irons in the fire.

Jennifer wrote: "The other problem I have with coming together as one denomination (and I say denomination because I personally believe that there currently is only one Church, regardless of the denomination)....:

I get where you're coming from with that terminology, even though I use the word differently (to me the whole idea of a "denomination" is entirely about being separated from other believers, so it would be hard for me to think of the universal Church as "one denomination" even if it did become more united in actual practice). You're right that there IS only one Church, no matter how division-ridden it is. I'd just like to see it much less division-ridden --but like you, I don't see compromising on the necessity of salvation and Christian ethical living, nor blind obedience to a mortal human leader, as legitimate ways to arrive at that goal!

All excellent points, Jennifer, especially about leadership pulling off-kilter pastors back onto The Way.

This is why I am always a little concerned about independent churches or what used to be called home churches that were so popular back in the 80s. A couple that were family friends bounced from one of these to another constantly. At one point, they changed homes churches four times in less than a year.

It wasn't simply that they heard something they didn't like. Often, it would be two very strong personalities in that group would clash, with both of them thinking they were in charge and could make decisions for everyone. There was no district board or even a local official to call both sides out and enforce actual Gospel teaching.

Decades later they finally found a church to plant roots, but their son (about 12 years younger than me) has no desire to ever set foot in a church again. It's heartbreaking to say the least.

Kevin wrote: "All excellent points, Jennifer, especially about leadership pulling off-kilter pastors back onto The Way.

This is why I am always a little concerned about independent churches or what used to be ..."

For the most part, I completely agree with you about home churches. The same thing can happen with “home study groups” that are attached to larger churches. However, during COVID, my husband and I were part of a home church that did work, but there are specific reasons why it worked.

First, many of the churches in our area closed for several months, and some switched to fully online services. My husband and I have deep, long relationships with numerous Christians in our area. When our church first closed, my husband led a private service in our home for our family. Still, we firmly believe in the command in Hebrews 10:25 not to neglect the assembly. One of our friends found out what we were doing, and asked if we wanted to join the home church they created specifically for that purpose, so we did.

So, the first thing is that we all started with the shared belief that neglecting to assemble was unBiblical, but we had no other way to follow this command except by meeting privately. Second, most of the people assembled were relatively mature Christians who had already spent years in Christian service. (My husband and I are ordained missionaries, and one retired minister also attended regularly.) Each week, we used prefab video curriculum that was agreed upon by the entire group, or the mature Christian men (who were willing) rotated reading from the Bible. We would then discuss what we had watched or had read together in a mature way. The men also rotated the communion meditation. Parents with children rotated watching the children and usually played a kid’s movie like VeggieTales or read from an agreed-upon Sunday School curriculum book we had. One of the ladies in the group was a church's piano player and had a piano in her home, so she recorded hymns each week, and we then sang from the recording. Afterward, we all shared a potluck meal and talked about our lives and how we could pray for each other.

We were never completely closed off from our original congregations or other congregations in the area because we all had friends throughout whom we maintained contact with. When my husband and I saw a church (the one we currently attend) holding VBS in the summers, we took our daughter to it, although we did not yet leave the home church because we felt called to be there.

I believe it was 2 years before we all came together for the last time and agreed that since all the churches in the area had opened, we no longer had a need to meet privately. We also knew through the grapevine that these churches needed workers, and we could help, so we dissolved the home church by mutual agreement and went our separate ways. We are still in contact with those whom we knew before we formed the church.

As I said, I completely agree that home churches are not ideal and are definitely prone to corruption. However, there may come a time when that is the only option Christians have. The home church we attended worked because all the members were equals, and we were solely meeting in a home because we felt we had no other way to follow God’s command. It also worked because even though we didn't always agree with each other, we all disagreed with respect and simply stated our opinions and the reasoning behind them without trying to force our point.

At the same time, I have also been involved in home Bible studies that did not work—even though the lesson leader rotated. In that case, the person giving the lesson was not necessarily qualified to do so and often incorporated their own insights or read from a book they selected themselves, the large number of children were usually allowed to play under minimal or no supervision, the children were never part of any sort of lesson, and the participants were not mature Christians and often focused on socializing over Biblical learning. This is also the reason I cringe whenever anyone invites me to a "women's Bible study." Too often, those also devolve into social hour or "let's point out Susie's faults, today." In fact, the only women's Bible study I ever attended (so far) that was actually good and stayed Biblically focused was (perhaps ironically) taught by a man! It also ended up being the largest women's Bible study I attended with about 30 regular members. Some would probably find it amazing that when you focus on the Bible, you end up drawing more people to you.

Strictly speaking, whether a congregation meets in a church building or a private home is a separate question from whether or not it has a (written or unwritten) extra-biblical doctrinal test for fellowship. Both of the house churches that I've ever been in were part of denominations, though the first one would have denied that (yes, Olson would nod his head and say "I told you so!" :-) ), and probably most non-denominational congregations have a church building.

Nevertheless, I think the question of whether or not church buildings are a good idea is a very worthwhile one to discuss, and deserves a thread of its own. So, I've started one here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... , if anyone's interested.

In writing The Eucharist: Heart of the Christian Unity, I was drawn not only to a theological subject, but to a wound within the Body of Christ—a wound that has endured through centuries of division, even as we all gather around the same Lord, confess the same faith in His saving work, and long for the same communion with Him.

The Eucharist is not merely one doctrine among many. It is the very heart of the Church’s life. In it, Christ gives Himself—not symbolically alone, but truly and sacramentally—as the living Bread from heaven. In it, the faithful are united not only to Him, but to one another as one Body. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Yet here lies the paradox that grieved my heart as I wrote this book: how can the sacrament of unity be celebrated in a state of division? How can we proclaim one Body while remaining separated at the very Table that manifests that unity?

This work is therefore both theological and pastoral. It seeks to return us to the biblical and patristic vision of the Eucharist—not as a point of separation, but as the very means by which unity is revealed, nourished, and restored. The early Church understood this mystery deeply: the Eucharist makes the Church, and the Church is revealed in the Eucharist.

My desire is not to enter into controversy, but to call the Church back to the heart of Christ’s prayer: “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). The Eucharist stands at the center of this prayer—not only as a remembrance of His sacrifice, but as a present participation in His life, His Body, and His love.

I pray that this book may serve as an invitation—especially to those entrusted with shepherding the Church—to reflect anew on the meaning of Eucharistic communion, and to seek, with humility and faith, the restoration of that visible unity for which Christ offered Himself.

For in the Eucharist, we do not only receive Christ—we are called to become what we receive: one Body in Him.

— Hegumen Abraam Sleman
www.frsleman.org

Thanks for commenting, Hegumen! If you feel comfortable doing so, I encourage you to introduce yourself on this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... , so we can get to know you better.

Our group bookshelf has a "written by group members shelf," here: https://www.goodreads.com/group/books... . Feel free to add your books there! Also, you should check out our Authors folder, here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group... .

Dear Werner,

Thank you very much for your kind message and encouragement. I truly appreciate your welcoming spirit.

I have already submitted a brief introduction on the thread, and I have also added some of my books to the group shelf as you kindly suggested. Thank you for guiding me to these helpful resources.

I look forward to engaging more with the group and getting to know everyone.

With gratitude and blessings,
Hegumen Abraam Sleman
www.frsleman.org

You're very welcome, Hegumen! Blessings to you too.

This thread is continuing to touch on topics that are complex, and important, enough to inspire whole new discussions in their own right (which, in a group focused on serious discussion, is a good thing!) I've just created two more threads, "Congregational leadership --singular or plural?" (here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ) and "The Lord's Supper/Eucharist" (here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... .) If you'd like to explore and comment on these issues more deeply, I invite you to check these out!