An Alliance Approach in Navigating Divisive Issues

The following article is adopted with a written permission from the original author. The purpose of posting it on this blog is to help the Alliance church members and leaders to navigate divisive issues by identifying the level of severity or sensitivity of the controversial subjects. 

Please contact Pastor Fowler if you would like to quote or share any part of the article. 

“This article was not published and is not accessible online. You’re welcome to use the article on your blog.” 

STEVE FOWLER

Church Revitalization Director
Alliance NW District Office

alliancenw.org

In navigating divisive issues, I have found it most helpful to distinguish levels of certainty. Then I can differentiate what is essential from that which is merely controversial. For me, this breaks down into four levels.

 

First are things I would “die for.” To deny them knowingly would demonstrate that you are outside the boundaries of gospel orthodoxy and perhaps not in living relationship with Jesus.

In navigating divisive issues, I have found it most helpful to distinguish levels of certainty.

 

Second are things I would “divide for.” We are Christians, fellow members of the body of Christ, but we won’t be in the same local fellowship. 

 

Third are things I would “debate for.” Here, we are in the same church but we will wrestle (sometimes heatedly) with these issues. 

 

Fourth are things we “decide for.” These issues contribute to the rich diversity in the life of our church. Let’s discuss each in turn.

 

Die For

This category contains the foundations of the faith once delivered to the saints for which we contend earnestly (Jude 3). If necessary, the truth of the gospel incorporated in these propositions are things for which we would give up our life. They include the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as the God-man, Jesus, including his virgin birth, sinless life, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and personal return. Also included is justification and regeneration by grace alone through faith alone which is lived out in gospel centered good works (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 2:11-13;3:3-8), the Spirit’s personal indwelling believers constituting the one body of Christ, and the final judgment leading to hell and heaven.

 

Calling a person who knowingly denies essentials of the faith a brother or sister in Christ for the sake of “unity” truly denies the unity founded on the truth of Jesus Christ. We see a growing progressive wing that calls for humility and broadening the definition of gospel orthodoxy to include universalism. Humility concerning such items can never be a virtue. Some truths are worth dying for.

 

Consider for a moment the Egyptian brothers who were paraded onto a beach in North Africa by their ISIS captors.  They were told to deny Jesus and convert to Islam or be executed.  This was a “die for” issue for the men and they chose to die for Jesus. 

 

Divide For

Everyone who affirms the essentials in word and life is a fellow member of Christ’s body, one whom we call brother or sister in Christ. However, other important issues are so foundational to our life with God that we will divide fellowship over them. In ancient times it led to the division between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). In modern times, these are the foundations of the denominational differences.

 

The best example of a divide for event in church history would be the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther's posting of The Ninety-Five theses at Wittenberg is seen as the start of the Protestant Reformation. This happened in the year 1517. In 1515, the Pope started a new indulgence campaign to raise money for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, a church in Rome. Preachers came to Germany to sell the indulgences, promising that money could release souls from purgatory.  Martin Luther, a German Catholic monk thought this went too far. On October 31, 1517, he sent his 95 theses to the local archbishop in protest. It is said he nailed a copy to the door of a church in Wittenberg. These theses, written in Latin, were points that Luther wanted to debate. Most of them related to the problems caused by the sale of indulgences. Luther said that the idea the money could buy forgiveness prevented people from turning away from sins. He said that it also made people give less money to the poor.  Without Luther's permission, the 95 Theses were translated into German and sent to many places. Many people agreed with Luther. The Catholic Church tried to stop these new ideas, but without much result. Luther was considered an enemy of the Pope, and when he refused to change his ideas, he was excommunicated. 

 

In recent years, we have reduced the number of issues in the “divide for” category. Often this is because there is an attempt to look for unifying points and see the differences within that light. When churches emphasize the power of the Spirit’s work and the fullness of the gifts, the evidentiary significance of speaking in tongues that used to divide Pentecostals and Charismatics is much less significant. As we affirm strongly the centrality of Scripture, fewer will divide over the question of whether God speaks today only through Scripture, or if He also speaks through prophetic revelation.

 

When the unifying truth of a whole-person spirituality (including mind, will, emotions, body and spirit) is emphasized, churches balance careful teaching of the Word and the expectation of a gospel-centered, heart-level obedience.

 

Jesus calls us to unity and so we should pursue gospel ecumenism, a spiritual unity that still respects these important differences. This kind of ecumenism promotes true understanding between instead of caricatures of the other groups. It speaks first and primarily of our unity in Christ and addresses others as fellow believers.

 

Debate For

We wrestle with these issues inside a church or denomination. The wrestling may be prolonged or painful, but we do it while maintaining regular fellowship, joining in worship and service. Debated issues may include the leadership roles appropriate for women, the extent of involvement the church should have in compassionate ministries in the community, the age of the earth, or which musical and preaching styles are best in a worship service. 

 

It seems to me that we must keep debate for’sfrom escalating into divide for’s. The best leaders keep the unity of the body at the center of our thinking as Paul admonishes us in Ephesians 4:3. These leaders are also able keep the focus on the essentials even when the wrestling is strenuous.

 

I find that when churches try to maintain unity by silencing the debates or smoothing things over with “nice” words, divisive folk are often empowered. The divisive people continue to promote their wrangling without being called to responsibility by the wisdom of the group.

 

The ground rules of Acts 15 seem appropriate in resolving these issues in congregations. Paul took the divisive people back to their body in Jerusalem, where everyone spoke for themselves before the whole church. They spoke what they believed and to the issue at hand rather than to the errors of the other group and to irrelevant issues. The whole congregation listened and recognized the wisdom of James as he stood for essentials (justification by faith alone apart from observance of the Mosaic Law) and proposed compromise on secondary issues. They led the group in wise decision-making, rather than making decrees and enforcing decisions by weight of authority. The size of the group of people involved would vary depending on the significance of the debated issue.

 

Decide For

These are the kinds of issues addressed in Romans 14-15, the areas of belief and behavior about which there is no law. This is where acceptance is a virtue and legalism a real danger, especially as divisive people latch onto lower-level issues, raising them into foolish controversies (1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4-5; 2 Tim. 2:14-16, 23-26; Tit. 3:9-10).

 

Paul instructs us to stop judging one another over such issues, to stop holding others in contempt because they differ here. Rather, he directs us to accept each other, urging us, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19).

Note well, this accepting attitude applies only in the non-essentials. Difference in essential matters like what is required for becoming a true Christian “brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them” (Acts 15:2).

 

Conclusion

How do you discern the differences between these levels of certainty? In my judgment, the discernment revolves around the centrality and clarity the issue takes in Scripture and the significance of the issue for our faith.

 

Jesus as God incarnate in full humanity, who lived a sinless life, is a die for. Scripture is clear that Jesus did not sin. Those who affirm that He sinned in order to establish His full humanity may appear sensitive to human problems, yet, they exclude themselves from gospel orthodoxy when they do.

 

In my judgment, the discernment revolves around the centrality and clarity the issue takes in Scripture and the significance of the issue for our faith.

 

When a church decides to affirm a sexual expression, which scripture has forbidden,members of the church often will divide over this decision. The United Methodist Church (UMC)announced a proposal to split the denomination over what it called "fundamental differences" regarding its beliefs on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ clergy. This has become a divide for issue for some in the UMC.

 

What did Jesus mean when He cried out, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30) and died? Did He mean He finished the work of propitiating the wrath of God toward elect sinners whom God chose based on His sovereign purposes alone (definite atonement in Calvinism)? Or did He mean He had finished the arduous work of atonement to provide payment for the penalty of sin for all who would receive Him, whom God chose based on His perfect foreknowledge of their choice from all eternity (universal atonement in Arminianism)? These sorts of questions that have to do with different ways of connecting scriptural affirmations are often debatefor issues.

 

Which songs shall we sing in church? Should the fellowship hall floor be covered with linoleum or carpet? Can we sell Christmas ornaments in the lobby at church? These are excellent examples of decide for questions.

 

The struggle with division in the church is when our lack of spiritual maturity and/or our divisiveness escalates matters from a decide for or a debate forcategory to something we must divide for or even die for.  The subtleties of our comments often betray our lack of wisdom.  I remember a church leader saying, “If that ever happens here, it’ll be over my dead body!”  This leader had escalated a decide for issue all the way up the ladder to something he would fight to his metaphorical death over. 

 

As we comprehend these levels of certainty and begin to employ them as a community of believers, we can avoid the trap of being unnecessarily divisive on one hand and compromising the faith on the other. As we emphasize the essentials, we are less likely to fall for the cultural accommodations of Christianity that lead to liberalism. That also helps us keep secondary issues in perspective and avoid the divisions they create.

 

我「點解」要和孩子《勇敢議論所有事》（好書推薦）

昨天，跟兒子議論：

你點解要專登講啲唔應該講嘅嘢？

我重複問他，

點解要學人哋，點解唔聽兩個妹妹提醒唔好再講。

他的反應讓我驚訝，他彷彿一片空白，沒有自辯，也沒有解釋，甚至沒有任何回應。是我問得太狠，還是沒有好好鍛鍊他的思考和勇敢議論的能力？

下面介紹的這本書，正好挑戰了我「點解」要和孩子《勇敢議論所有事》。

約櫃裡放的東西有什麼含義？

 

最近再次「出埃及」加上今早用「十誡照鏡」後，突然想了解一下究竟約櫃裡放的東西有什麼含義。

參考了這文章後，有小小的見解，只是非常個人的領會

• 十誡：幫助心靈省察，讓聖靈光照我裡面有什麼惡行沒有… 作為誡命的總綱，十誡是我學習愛神愛人的規範與準則（precept）
• 嗎哪：提醒我神的供應和同在，每天祈求主賜天糧… 「這是什麼」也就成為了我不太認識，但同時賴以為我屬靈生命每日所需的應許（promise）
• 發過芽的杖：對我來說，是給與服事者的認定，尤其是在人事糾紛當中… 確實需要屬靈的智慧與能力（power）

默想經文：

「…櫃裡有盛著嗎哪的金罐、

亞倫那根發過芽的杖

和兩塊約版 」

(希伯來書9:4 標準譯本)

後記：

下午寫完了頭兩點後，與華州牧者們聚餐。當我還想著「亞倫的杖…結出熟的杏子！」 (民數記17:8) 的含義時，一位我曾經與他一起為華州復興禱告的牧師領取了一大包的杏仁作為晚會禮物。接著將要離開時，有另一師母把一大盒的杏仁餅拿過來說要給我們家的小孩吃。我心裏想著，不會那麼巧吧。那就當作主給我的小小「認定」因為我也「確實需要屬靈的智慧與能力（power）」，感謝主…

同被稱為主聖殿（林前6:19）

無懼來到恩座前（希4:16）

內室禱告被看見（太6:4）

良心得贖成奉獻（希9:14）

An excerpt of an Alliance Pastor, Steve Fowler on Essentials vs Nonessentials

The following is an excerpt of an article written during the time when Alliance National Office revisiting the current statement of faith and in particular about the postmillennial position. The author, Steve Fowler has provided helpful resources for Alliance members to understand the issues at hand from a perspective of Essentials vs Nonessentials. 

Christian Leadership: Tensions within the Soul

Adopted from Strengthening the Soul of Your Leadership by Ruth Barton, p.27.

With reflection on the seven tensions within my soul:

“There is the tension between what the human soul needs in order to be truly well and what life in leadership encourages and even requires.”

This resonates with some Chinese sayings, 人在江湖 身不由己，在朝不如在野. 

“There is the tension between the time it takes to love people and the need for expediency.”

It’s especially true with a relational leader because things that touch the soul is slow.

“There is the tension between knowing how to “work the system” and entering into trustworthy relationships characterized by trust and a commitment to one another’s well being.”

In ministry, we are called to love people nor programs. When the soul values people first, programs will come.

“There is the tension between the need for an easy discipleship process through which we can efficiently herd lots of people and the patient, plodding and ultimately mysterious nature of the spiritual transformation process.”

Jesus’s way of discipleship is counterintuitive, high efforts, time consuming, sacrificial, costly, intimate. Yet, true disciples rejoice in the plodding. 

“There is the tension between the need for measurable goals and the difficulty of measuring that which is ultimately immeasurable by anyone but God himself.” 

This one is hard to say if you’re a hired pastor, you’re expected and wanted to do both. That’s the tension. 

“There is the tensions between the organizational hierarchy where all the power dynamics this creates and the mutuality and interdependence of life in community to which we as Christians are called.”

I like the analogy that human body is organic with many organisms, so does the body of Christ. One cannot live without the other. It’s a good in-tension (intention).

Christian Leadership: Navigating the Tensions

A Christian Review of Every Leader Needs to Navigate These 7 Tensions

Introduction 

Helen Bevan, a Chief Transformation Officer (UK), introduces this research as this, "hundreds of leaders worldwide uncovered 7 core tensions between "traditional" & "emerging" leadership approaches. These tensions create a lot of stress for leaders (who need to be able to work with both)". The following article published by Harvard Business Review helps leaders to navigate between the 7 Tensions. 

Recommend glancing through the article here before looking into this post. To review this article as a church leader, the following mind-set and skill-sets are particularly important. 

In Ministry Context 

The Mind-Set of Both-And

Many church leaders serving in ethnic churches face the tensions of how to adopt their cultural leadership approach among the lay leaders who live and work in America. For example, a local Chinese church with a English speaking congregation and governing board is a bi-cultural leadership setting. Leaders are constantly navigating the tensions between the "clergy" and "laymen" even believing in priesthood of believers, the "way it was" and the "way it should be", the "written words" and the "living spirit", countless examples like these sit not just between leaders' mind but within even one leader's leadership mind. The research say, "Leaders improve their effectiveness not by consistently emphasizing one approach over the other, but by developing the ambidexterity (using both hands equally well) to move between the two as the context requires. The difficulty of achieving this level of cognitive and behavioral ambidexterity should not be underestimated — but it can be achieved, with focused efforts..." 

The Skills-Set of Personal Leadership 

The article suggests three practical tips for leaders to navigate the tensions. 

(1) Self-awareness. Understanding one’s natural tendencies is an important first step. Where is your comfort zone? What’s your default position?...

(2) Learn, adapt, practice. 

"Once leaders know their natural tendencies, they can work to develop a portfolio of micro-behaviors to address the tensions that they don’t manage well. This process can be enhanced by formal coaching."

(3) Contextual awareness. 

"Becoming a more effective leader means not only expanding one’s current leadership approach to incorporate new behaviors but knowing when to focus more on one side of the tension or the other. This requires both contextual awareness and emotional intelligence"

 

Ministry Reflection:

The following list is my initial response in navigating the tensions in ministry. 

    Tension 1: The Expert vs. the Learner

Taking myself as an example I often think in ways of biblical or historical of church governing structure. It takes intentionality to hear the real people and to understand how the church or fellowship have been operated. 

    Tension 2: The Constant vs. the Adaptor

To some degree this is the most "contradictory" or "ambidextrous" leadership style that I see myself in, "the traditional approach to leadership values decision-making conviction and consistency... the emerging approach recognizes that in fast-changing environments, decisions often need to be reversed or adapted, and that changing course in response to new information is a strength, not a weakness." 

    Tension 3: The Tactician vs. the Visionary
This is my favorite leadership paradox and particularly true in ministry. From my limited life experience, if you can't be both, just be either one rather than no one. The research says "the traditional approach to leadership calls for operational clarity and well-defined plans. The emerging approach suggests that leaders require a clear vision for where they want to go, without necessarily needing a concrete roadmap for how to get there." We truly need both the tactician and visionary working together if one cannot be both that at the same time. 

    Tension 4: The Teller vs. the Listener
In leadership meeting, sometimes I need to remind myself that I need to listen carefully. Even in preparing sermon I need to remind myself to listen. A default teller takes discipline to keep quiet to listen attentively, actively, and empathetically. "The traditional approach to leadership calls for leaders to tell others what to do and how to do it. The emerging approach values listening carefully to others before deciding."

    Tension 5: The Power Holder vs. the Power Sharer
As an emerging leader I favor share power until more recently I learned that holding power will allow me to share more when the time is right. This one has a lot to do with the art of delegation (see my other post). "The traditional approach suggests that leaders must lead from the top, make decisions, and take actions independently. In contrast, the emerging approach values empowering others to achieve goals. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders run the risk of alienating and marginalizing promising talent."

    Tension 6: The Intuitionist vs. the Analyst

A more subjective person naturally rely on intuition and need to value objective facts, opinions, and objections. I benefit from this kind of tension when I work with people different from me. "The traditional approach suggests that leaders build up an “expert gut” to make intuitive decisions. By contrast, the emerging approach says that leaders should base decisions largely on data... "

    Tension 7: The Perfectionist vs. the Accelerator
I take things very seriously in ministry, making many theoretical assumptions, predicting different implications, and often unconsciously being judgmental. This is a good tension to work more with young leaders, "The emerging approach calls for leaders to acknowledge that doing something quickly, and failing fast, is often more important than doing it perfectly. If not managed wisely, leaders run the risk of delaying the launch of key initiatives or directives due to a fear of imperfection. Conversely, bringing initiatives forward without ample consideration and testing can lead to embarrassing results."

It is important to keep in mind that ministry is different from secular organization. God is the ultimate leader. Church leader is a part of the body, having different gifts but serving the same Lord.