Friday, August 13, 2004

Can We Sing With One Voice?

Ah, smart music. For everyone who likes their music to actually have something to say, I have found the band for you. Sure, the trumpet and trombone are a little hard to get used to, but the message in the O. C. Supertones’ music is just awesome! For me, Supertones music is an acquired taste. I had to listen to it for a while before I really began to appreciate it.

I have recently decided that I like the Supertones, and I came across their album Chase the Sun in our van. Since their music is so original, I have decided to go over some of their songs from Chase the Sun. First up is the first song on the cd, One Voice. The song is from 1999, so don’t worry about the reference to the year in the first line.

O. C. Supertones: One Voice
From the album Chase the Sun

1999 and the stakes is high.
Our options have come down
To either we do or we die.
We need You now more than ever.
Pull out all of the strife in the church,
Get us together.

Is time running out?
I can’t say. I do know
We have one day less
Than we did yesterday.So it’s up to us to unite;
You wanna fight the power?
You need the power to fight.

(chorus)
And can we sing with one voice,
If we all love the same God?
Can we agree to disagree?
And so we cry with one voice
To the only God in all the universe
Who holds us in His hands.

No more time
For us to bicker and complain.
If we’re called by the same name.
There’s nowhere for us to lay the blame
Except for ourselves,
And if we died of our old selves
To come alive as God’s flesh,
That makes us family.

Deeper than death,
But we don’t act so tight
When there’s a back to bite.
Are we less like a family, and
More like a fistfight?
Are we there, but not quite?
Are hypocrites children if light?

(repeat chorus)

Man, I even liked typing it. Of course, it helps to listen to the song, but the words alone can put forth the case for unity in the church quite well, and they do so in a short amount of time.
Seriously, we’ve got bigger things to worry about than whether or not those folks over there pray in tongues. We’ve got a unified enemy and we’re on his turf, and all we can think about is how we can’t stand those “flaky televangelists.” We’re too busy attacking other Christians over how they were baptized to even defend ourselves against attacks from the devil, much less mount a believable attack on the kingdom of darkness. “Are we less like a family and more like a fistfight?” Unfortunately (and irresponsibly), yes.

At what point did we stop thinking about winning souls? We are in a war with the kingdom of darkness, and the souls of billions of people are at stake. Instead of concentrating our collective efforts in a unified front against our common enemy, we waste our energy on petty, factious infighting. Imagine our enemy’s joy when he marches into battle only to find that those that he would strive against have turned on each other! Through our prideful negligence, we abandon our first priority in favor of pursuing a carnal, man-made goal (denominationalism), and in the process we end up slaughtering the cause we claim to champion (love).

With all the conflict in the body of Christ, it’s no wonder we are called hypocrites. We preach a message of love, but our message falls flat in the wake of our infighting. If we preach love, but we can’t even love each other, why should anyone listen to us? We, in all our pompous spirituality, say “love thy neighbor” while neglecting to love even our own brothers in Christ. We are supposed to have died of our old selves and come alive as God’s flesh, thus becoming family, but when it comes right down to it, we refuse to even love our brothers. As Christians, our relation is supposed go deeper than death, so surely it goes deeper than our carnal sectarianism.

We as Christians must realize that we are in a war, a struggle, between light and darkness. Because of that, we cannot live and function as though we have the luxury of being able to nit-pick and fight with other Christians like angry siblings. We cannot pretend that we have nothing better or more important to do than to bicker with Christians whose minor points of doctrine offend us. In WWII, many nations with disagreements came together to fight an impending evil, forgetting their differences and swallowing their arrogance and pride in order to defend the values that they all held dear.

That is how we must be. We are Christians, and as such, our first priority is to spreading the Gospel. Our call is not to get up in arms against our brothers because they like to swing a little incense; we should instead pick up our swords in defense of the fundamental parts of Christianity. We should stand up next to each other and fight for the basic tenets of our faith which we all hold dear, fighting against the enemy that threatens us all, rather than attacking our allies over small doctrinal disagreements.

We are the body of Christ, and as I have said before, all the parts of the Body should work together. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, then the church in danger of losing what influence it still has. Despite our disagreements, we are all in the same boat. It’s stupid to turn our cannons on each other when we are in a life and death struggle with the prince of the power of the air! Divided, we are a bickering bunch of impotent hypocrites, but united, we are unstoppable. If Christ is at our head, and we are all obedient to Him, there is nothing in this world that can stop us from winning the world to Christ.

Be blessed!
Neo

COMMENT POLICY

Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.

18 Comments:

At Fri Aug 13, 06:47:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Neo:

I respect your opinions, but I must disagree with the tenor of your post.
First, I think you are wrong to classify Christian v. Christian opposition as "prideful", "arrogant", or "needless". Arguments over the burning incense, rock n' roll music during worship, and speaking in tongues seem trivial, but are the results of deep, deep, doctrinal differences. Such differences are not petty; they crucially strike at the heart of our fundamental beliefs, and should be taken very seriously.
You are correct in stating that the first duty of the Church is to preach the Gospel. Well, what IS the Gospel? The entire Bible? Only the New Testament? Only parts of the New Testament? This is a major divisional topic amongst many churches. Many churches believe that not all of the NT is acceptable (i.e., no women pastors, homosexuality is a sin, divorce is not okay, what qualifications a minister must meet, ect.), while others believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and is completely infallible. This isn't a petty issue. Isn't the the belief in the infallibility of Scripture an essential tenet to Christianity?
As for the "flaky" televangelists, do not the majority of them attack the very foundations of Christianity, such as the depravity of fallen man, God's absolute authority as Creator, and even the existence of a Triune God? How can you say that such things are unimportant?
Your point stands: Christians should be united; but not at the cost of compromising God's commands. As Christians, our highest priority is not to get along with each other, or even to witness to the nations, rather, we are to please God. And we do this by searching the Scriptures to find out what He commands, and what is contrary to His Word, even if it runs against our modernistic grain.
Peace should never be purchased at the cost of sacrificing God's explicit commands. There is only one Truth, and as Christians, we should accept nothing less.

 
At Fri Aug 13, 06:47:00 PM, Blogger John.Christian said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Fri Aug 13, 07:07:00 PM, Blogger John.Christian said...

S. Lewis, You are right on the subject of not compromising God'sWord for man. But I don't think that is what neo was saying.

It appeared to me that he was addressing those who would rather argue instead of trying to find the Truth. I believe that is what he meant even if he didn't exactly type it in there.

"The aim of argument [...] should not be victory, but progress." -- Joseph Joubert

also...

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. -- also, Joubert

 
At Fri Aug 13, 07:16:00 PM, Blogger John.Christian said...

Sorry. God was speaking to me and I wanted to post a little more.

We shouldn't be having meaningless arguments, eg. well, i don't like the way he dresses or i don't like the way she ties her shoelaces. When if we all would stop our own personal squabbles and started to preach the Truth of Jesus Christ as one. Glory to God! We could win the world!

 
At Fri Aug 13, 07:37:00 PM, Blogger D2M said...

There's a big difference between personal convictions and Biblical truth. In the Church today, people have not been taught the difference. They are, in fact, taught by example that convictions are as right as God's Word. And in this way, I think we find people bickering and arguing over things they shouldn't.

For instance, music (aka, the sound) is a personal conviction. The Bible does not say much on the matter one way or the other. Yet people take their convictions and demand other's follow them. This causes a lot of strife, because those who take one music as bad or holier than another, basically tell others not agreeing with them is SIN and that they are out of fellowship with God!

This is what I see a lot, something I have been guilty of, and it makes me want to weep. I weep because we as brothers and sisters bicker over insignificant things, and then dismiss the important ones as "agree to disagree". We are a very backwards group of people.

 
At Fri Aug 13, 08:01:00 PM, Blogger doris said...

...just happened to surf by...

That's a great post and I agree with you that differences should be set aside to accomplish the greater goal.

In response to S.Lewis' comment:

I don't know... I think I would have to flat out disagree with what you said. The "fundamental beliefs", the "tenet of Christianity", the "Gospel" etc. I think can be summed up in the final requests of Christ (ie - His Word): "Love one another as I have loved you" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Isn't that the *true* message of Christianity? The differences in how people worship, which parts of the Bible they believe in, whether they take it as absolute verbatim... aren't those all just details? Could I hazard to say, petty differences?

I have to admit, I'm a Catholic. Well, technically. I'm probably closer to agnostic. Do I believe in God? -Yes. Do I believe in *a* God? -Not necessarily. I think everyone has their own way of worship/appreciation and that just because you go to church every Sunday doesn't mean you're a "good" person. In fact, I admire people who go out there and make positive impacts in the world (whether it be researching alternative energy, contributing to on-the-ground international development, implementing corporate social responsbility, buying lunch for a hungry person on the corner of the street, etc.) much much more than those who try to impose their so-called correct "beliefs" on you.

Anyways, I digress...

My point is, who cares? Doesn't the message of the Golden Rule transcend all those perceived "fundamental tenet" boundaries you made reference to? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - it applies to everyone (and by everyone I don't just mean Christians and Catholics). If you think about it, nearly all (major) religions around the world fundamentally preach the same thing and that is "Do no evil. Do good." It's pretty simple. And for the most part, people around the globe can agree what good, in its simplest form, is.

Heh - I probably opened a few cans of worms here (sorry Neo, I don't mean to make this a battle ground), so I'll just stop here... =P

 
At Fri Aug 13, 08:14:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

John:

It seems to me that Neo is arguing for the abandonment of denominations, under the guise of "Church unity". I think that is a very dangerously un-Scriptural position to hold. Un-Scriptural, because it ignores the fact that there is ONE truth, and that division therefore is often necessary to divide those who follow God's Word implicitly, and those who compromise.

For example, would you believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, wholly self-reliant Word of God, and that it is the only means of interpreting God's Will? This is essential Christian doctrine, and explicitly taught in the Bible.
But you mentioned that God "spoke to you". Did you mean that God spoke to you through His Word, or did you receive a personal message? If you believe you received a personal message, then you are in disagreement with the doctrine of self-reliant Scripture, or, "Sola Scriptura".
From there, it stands to reason if you disagree that the Bible is the only means of interpreting God's will, you also disagree that the Bible is infallible, because it clearly states that it IS the only means of interpreting God's will. And then, if the Bible is wrong, obviously God is wrong, because He wrote the Bible. And if God is wrong, then why do you believe anything that He says?

As you can see, the simple belief that God "speaks to me", turns into an eventual denial of God's very Godliness. So it is with many, many, "minor" quibbles that Christians hold.

 
At Fri Aug 13, 08:21:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Well, Ethereal, sure. From your point of view, what you said makes sense. But aren't you really just picking out the parts of Scripture that you happen to like, and ignoring the rest? The problem with that, is that that isn't Christianity. A "Christian", is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ, follows what Christ says. Are you really a follower, if you only selectively agree with what He says? Aren't you instead following yourself, i.e., what YOU think is right? So how could you call yourself a Christian?

 
At Fri Aug 13, 09:09:00 PM, Blogger doris said...

I *don't* call myself a Christian. Nor would I call myself a true Catholic...

Yes, I suppose am following/believe what *I* think is right, and I guess you're right in that I am "just picking out the parts of Scripture that [I] happen to like" (though I'll admit I never thought of it that way). But I guess my question is... do you accept that? In your mind, is it ok for someone to believe in God, eventhough it may not be exactly the same capacity that you do? Is it enough that a person believes and practices good will/deeds? And do you think your way of believing/worshiping is the right way or the only way?

NB: I'm not trying to attack you in any way, I'm just curious as to what your answers are and whether you've ever thought about this from this point of view.

 
At Fri Aug 13, 09:39:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Ethereal:

I appreciate your honesty. To be equally candid, I must admit that I don’t accept your beliefs as being *valid*. Here’s why:

When you say you believe in God, what do you mean by that? What kind of God do you believe in? I firmly believe that the only valid God to worship is the God of the Bible. Now, by making that statement, I hold myself to believe what the Bible teaches about God… not the least of which, it clearly states that “You shall have no other gods except Me”. So for me to believe in the Bible, requires me to reject anything other than what the Bible teaches.

It IS enough that a person is a “good” person, for me to receive them as a brother/sister in the Lord, but there lies the problem. For me, the definition of “good” involves obeying God’s commands and following the example of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For you, doing “good” might involve doing what you feel is right; but without basing your actions on an absolute, you might actually be doing wrong… how would you know?
I don’t mean to say that someone can’t be “moral”, and reject God’s word. But the fact of the matter is, if your morality is not God’s morality, then your morality (however nice it is) will not save you.

As far as proper worship, it isn’t “my” way versus “your” way… I worship the way I do because I believe it is the way that God commands us to worship Him. There is no sense of personal preference here; this is a matter of obedience in worshiping God the way He commands me to. So in that sense, yes, I do believe that “my” way of worshiping is the only valid one… as long as “my” way is God’s way, through His commands in the Bible.

 
At Sat Aug 14, 12:37:00 PM, Blogger doris said...

Touche!
You say 'po-tay-to', I say 'po-tah-to'.

To be fair, here's where I stand:
For me, I don't take the messages of the Bible literally. Instead, having grown up learning them, they've now been incorporated into my life more as general guidelines - a benchmark system similar to the one you use to measure good. I use to be much like you, though I doubt I was ever as devoted as you are, but after awhile I found I was always so focused on obeying God's commands that I was missing out on life! I thought, what's the point of God giving me life and putting me on this Earth if I'm not enjoying what He's given me? I've been given so many talents and gifts, am so excited about life and the world that all I wanted to do was use them to their full potential to help/contribute to humanity - my piece of good, or purpose if you will. Eventually I began to see Him in everything and began appreciating everything - but in a slightly different light. Everything began to meld together - good, bad, past, present, future.

So, I slowly began to believe in god, rather than God (I'll use a lower case 'g' to differentiate the two). Not just a greater being, but rather a universal purpose that we're all a part of and inexorably moving towards. Everything you do, everything anything does at their precise moment happening because of some great event in the future. In a sense, a parallel to how you might feel about the Second Coming. For example, this conversation - I wonder what role it will play out? How will it affect you? How will it affect me? How will it affect anyone who reads this?

Anyways, writing this out I've realized I'm not quite ready to talk about this at any length - I haven't thought it out through and through. I guess a lot of what I believe/think of now is based more on intuition than anything.... (hehe, maybe that's how this affects me)

I enjoyed our banter - thanks! ;)

 
At Sat Aug 14, 01:06:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Ethereal:

I, too, enjoyed our slight clash. It's good for me to assess my own beliefs, rather than just "lip-serving" the creeds.

I appreciate the time you took to outline your views, and I must say that it was refreshing to see that we could have a major disagreement without relapsing into angry emotional attacks. I respect your decision to drop the subject, and I'll leave it at that.
May God give you peace, and help you to find the Truth!

 
At Sat Aug 14, 05:47:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Rachel:

"Banter" is not really "fighting" per se, it is more of an exchange of ideas, in an 'arguing' form. Arguments don't have to be bitter, either; it's possible to have a friendly debate.

It is fun to have debates, as long as both sides are respectful, and don't take disagreements as personal attacks. Debates help us to articulate our own views intelligently, while opening up our understanding of the other person's views.

 
At Sat Aug 14, 09:41:00 PM, Blogger Seth said...

S. Lewis, I'd like to comment on some of your statements and see your reaction:

1. "It IS enough that a person is a “good” person, for me to receive them as a brother/sister in the Lord."

Since when did a person's goodness or badness have anything to do with their being saved by God? Paul was the "chief of sinners," yet he was saved by God. Romans 9:10 states: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."

2. "if your morality is not God’s morality, then your morality (however nice it is) will not save you."

Morality, whether "personal" or "God's," does not save anyone. Only the blood of Christ can save us. "8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2: 8-9)

 
At Sat Aug 14, 10:54:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Seth:

You have totally misunderstood (and misrepresented) what I said.

I stand by what I said, it IS enough that someone is a “good” person to be saved… but the definition of “good” is not just “being moral”. The definition of “good” is believing and obeying God in all things. Basically stated, every Christian is a “good” person; non-Christians are not “good” people. Of course, we still sin… often… but God (in the light of Christ’s sacrifice)graciously perceives us as holy/good.
In a nutshell: you can’t be saved without being “good”(i.e., the mortification of the “old man”), and you can’t be “good” without being saved (salvation by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, and the faith is a gift from God alone).

On the morality issue, we are both really in agreement, but I think I confused you with my choice of words. For me, “morality” is obedience to God’s Word. And yes, that is a “condition”(not the best of words, “evidence” would be better) of salvation: Jesus plainly teaches that “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:13). So, if someone steadfastly refuses to obey God, (“immoral”) would you call them saved? A good tree is known by its fruit, and I would have a hard time believing the sincerity of a “Christian” who will not honor God.
Now, of course, God is the only One who can judge a man’s heart. But the Bible is very clear: those who love God will obey Him.

Seth, I am gratified that you took the time to challenge me on my views; next time, please do me the courtesy of reading what I really wrote before pushing for a “reaction”.

 
At Sun Aug 15, 12:36:00 PM, Blogger Lewis said...

Pardon, it's actually John 14:15.

 
At Mon Aug 16, 09:20:00 AM, Blogger David Pulliam said...

Long comments and I got no time to read them all so I'll just say my opinion.

I think Neo is saying that we shouldn't be debating among our selves. about personal convictions like baptism, speaking in tongues, exc, and he is right. Christians should be helping each other regardless of certain issues that they disagree on. Their are certain issues where some Christians are really really messed up on, but does that mean they're not brothers in Christ? If you know a Christian who thinks abortion is wrong because he doesn' know that you can scientifically prove that they are alive in the womb, do you shred that person to pieces with Bible verses and preach to him day and night? Of course not. You give him Gods love and gently show him the truth. I've sadly learned the hard way in trying to convince people on certain issues and occassionally I've rubbed fellow Christians into the dirt.

It is important for Christians to be united, but of course people have to have personnal beliefs in which they sometimes have Biblical bases for, and if they do, instead of preaching to them, we should listen with an open mind and pray that they and us find the right answer.

 
At Tue Aug 17, 12:56:00 PM, Blogger maladroitme said...

If we don't debate what we believe, how will we ever learn? If we're all so stuck in our niches how can we grown as Christians or as human beings?

(By debate I mean discuss in a friendly and open-minded manner.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Take the MIT Weblog Survey Federal Social Security Calculator

Powered by Blogger

Who Links Here Religion Blog Top Sites Whose values?