Question to the forum?

greetings

I would like to put forth a question to the forum and ask anyone who replies to weigh what I ask seriously before GOD first. Its a question that has been on my heart for some time,

"Can two members of the Body of CHRIST really fellowship with one another daily, if they do in fact disagree?"

I have read many times, and have said myself let us agree to disagree but always feel very troubled in this. I think because deep down inside "disagreement" does cause some distance when fellow shipping with one another. I am not saying mutual love for CHRIST can not bring people together, but at the end of the day if I am being honest who am I going to fellowship with? The person who is seeing the same things I am seeing in walking daily with JESUS or the person who is on a different page? (Those last two questions were more just my thoughts)

Learning to truly die to self, to lay down my life for another might be learning to admit I am wrong about a matter, or it might mean loving another enough even when being faced with having stones cast my way, to stand my ground in HIM and speak truth....

Anyway just some things on my heart and mind this morning.
Wonder what FATHER might be showing some other?

God bless
maryjane

Boy MJ if all my Christian brothers and sisters believed the same way about everything it would be kind of boring. I have deep fellowship with various believers I know well but which we have sharp disagreement on some (but not extremely vital) issue.

Hi Mary,

"Can two members of the Body of CHRIST really fellowship with one another daily, if they do in fact disagree?"

The answer has to be yes, if we are dealing with members of the Body of Christ. I'm pretty certain there are no two members of the Body that agree on everything. I don't always agree with myself. I may have two opinions on the same subject. This is the consequence of Paul's words, "We Know in Part." Because WKIP there is no way to have complete unity in our understanding. To think so would be what I term an eschatological over-realization. In other words, in eternity yes; but now no.

The standard approach is simple, "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity." It has become cliche, but I think it is still right. The basis of our unity is that we share the nature of God; i.e., we are His children. We have a common Father. As God's children it is natural to love one another. This is the message of the New Covenant. Where love is wanting strife always follows. The world may behave this way; but as representatives of the Kingdom of God on earth, we ought never to be found striving (fighting). By this shall all men know that you are my disciples. This is a distinctive that the world cannot emulate.

The examples in Christ history are many. Perhaps the best is George Whitfield and John Wesley. They were on different sides of the pole on election. They loved one another.

If the enemy ever convinces us that uniformity of doctrine is the basis for unity of fellowship we will all become islands. As islands we will be easy targets for the enemy and false representations of the church. The word church is ekklesia and means an assembly. How can an individual assemble? So if two0 must assemble then there has to be a different basis for their gathering that uniformity of beliefs.

Blessings,

Robert

Robert wwrote:The examples in Christ history are many. Perhaps the best is George Whitfield and John Wesley. They were on different sides of the pole on election. They loved one another.
__________

Thank you for responding so thoughtfully. I see what your wrote here about Wesley and Whitefield and I understand you said they loved one another. My question is, did they fellowship with one another daily?? I guess I am getting at something deeper, its not about loving another who disagrees with a held belief, its can the two truly have fellowship with one another daily and still disagree?

Sorry if I am not really making clear what I am getting at. I will pray over this some more and try to seek GOD on how to better convey my heart.

God bless
mj

I believe the section of Paul's letter to the Roman believers that we call chapter 14 expresses his views on your question.

Those who were not of faith to eat meat were to "receive" those who were of faith to eat meat without judging. Those with the liberty to eat meat were not to look down upon those who abstained from eating meat. Paul cautioned against the attempt to "dialogue" about the differences because this would lead to dissections of the body of Christ.

Paul encouraged loving consideration towards other believers who hold a conviction about a matter that you do not share in personally. This could only be done in the context of interaction between those who differ in some convictions.

In his own testimony to Philippi, he exhorted the believers who desired to be perfect to follow his example, adding - "and if in some matter you think differently, that too God will manifest - only let us live up to that which we have already attained."

Therefore, I do believe "fellowship" with those with who we have "areas" of disagreement is possible and profitable.

makrothumia

Our fellowship is "in" Christ, not "in" our opinions, likes, and dislikes.

Greetings Frank

The one area, in my own experience, where division always seems to come and fellowship, especially in gatherings , can never truly be established is where one brother has been baptised in the Holy Spirit with sign gifts following and the other brother has not............bro Frank

___________________

Here is a good example, could two brothers in CHRIST really fellowship one to another if they held differing views on this topic. Daily could they meet with one another, pray seek GOD and lay down their lives, be a servant to help one another, without the disagreeing belief getting in the way?? I am not talking about meeting once in a while or loving each other in CHRIST from different areas.. I am asking about deep, committed fellowship, one to another daily and hold to the idea of agree to disagree?

You mentioned meeting with the brother once a week do you think it would have been different if you meant daily? Came together and lived one to another as they did in ACTS?

Let me give another example, if I don't hold to head covering, have no conviction of such a commend would those who do cover really be ok with fellowship with me daily, meeting me daily when I do not cover my head? Would agree to disagree really work for fellow shipping with one another? OR if I felt convicted strongly alcohol drinking was sin and others had freedom to drink wine(with out getting drunk) would we really be able to gather daily, be involved in each others lives daily laying down our lives one to another in CHRIST and still just agree to disagree?

Not sure if I am conveying what is on my heart. Sorry, this has been on my heart for so long and trying to really get down to the deeper issue of what it means to love another as CHRIST did, laying down my life,laying down my rights, for another and when to stand in HIM...

Any way thanks for the response.

God bless
mj

Therefore, I do believe "fellowship" with those with who we have "areas" of disagreement is possible and profitable.

makrothumia

____________

In your post I wonder could I ask, in order for "daily" fellowship to happen as it did in ACTS if believers are meeting daily wouldn't one have to lay down their beliefs in order for there to be peace and unity?

If I felt it was sin to drink wine but my brother felt in was fine to drink wine... one of us is going to have to lay down that belief so that fellowship can really happen daily right??

(just to let everyone know I am giving random examples to try and convey my thoughts about this, not labeling anything sin)

God Bless
mj

Thank you for your question. In order to preserve peace, one would have to "have faith unto God" and not attempt to discuss his "faith" with another. Matters of difference need not divide until they become matters of discussion. Some areas of faith are best kept private.

Raising the issue of "conscience" is a cause for disruption of peace. If we are secure in our faith toward God in a matter of private conviction, then observed differences need not disrupt that unity of the Spirit that is found in agreement in Christ.

The Greek word "sumphoneo" is translated "agree". It literally means to "sound the same." We see this demonstrated in orchestras. Trumpets and clarinets have a different form of musical expression, but as long as they are both tuned to concert pitch they do not clash with one another, they compliment.

My wife and I disagree all the time. :) Well, you know what I mean. But, we are one flesh nonetheless, and in Christ we are part of one Body nonetheless.

My pastor and I would not have the same views on some things. We are brothers in Christ, in one Body.

Paul disagreed sharply with Peter. One body.

Paul disagreed sharply with John Mark and with Barnabas the son of encouragement! One body.

Paul addressed the churches in Philippi and in Corinth with admonishments to be of one mind, and he addressed them as being "in Christ", and Christ is not divided.

We should agree and follow peace after all men, and that is so much more so true for believers with one another. But, perfect agreement on every thing is not to be had in this side of eternity because -- as someone else kindly put it --- WKIP.

KingJimmy....Our fellowship is "in" Christ, not "in" our opinions, likes, and dislikes.

Amen! I have always 'as an example" use this, I picture myself driving down the freeway, with cars on both sides and behind me, yes I focus on those cars "or here the case would be focus on opinions" but I don't roll down the window down and holler at the drivers around me, if I disagree with the way they drive, I stay focused on God, which would be the road ahead. Man doesn't deserve any glory for anything they know, heck, Satan knows the word as well as any of us. Remember how he tried to persuade Jesus to throw himself down from the temple roof? He argued from Scripture! "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, this is why I choose to focused on the one that knows everything, and will never leave me nor forsake me.

If I felt it was sin to drink wine but my brother felt in was fine to drink wine... one of us is going to have to lay down that belief so that fellowship can really happen daily right??

I have had (almost)daily fellowship with brothers and sisters who held an opposite view of what you've mentioned above. I don't think that one needs to lay down his beliefs but must respect the other for what they believe. In this case it makes sense when the brother who is ok with drinking wine abstains from it while being together with the one who holds that it is wrong. In my experience the subject becomes one that is no longer discussed once everybody has had a chance to explain why they belief as they do and true fellowship is possible. Any mature believer should be able to understand that what does not pertain to essentials of the faith ought not to divide us. The question is, do we WANT to have daily fellowship with those who hold different views?

And, taking wine as a case in point, it is precisely those differing levels of maturity and understanding that Paul is aiming his instructions in 1 Cor. 8. Although he spoke specifically about foods offered to idols, wine presents a similar stumbling block for many and also the maturer believer is going to understand more fully as a spiritual issue why abstention is better. So, when the less mature believer offers justifications and proof texts for no condemnation for merely consuming wine, the more seasoned saint should be equipped as a matter of insight, experience in God, a greater appetite for His glory as opposed to personal preference in food and drink, and a deeper appreciation for the spiritual and mental operations at work in choosing what to consume, the discussion between them does not come down to agree or disagree but rather maturation or stunted spiritual transformation to Jesus' image.

I believe makrothumia hit the nail on the head here in bringing Romans 14 to our attention. We see clearly there that we are to bear with one another's differences in non-essential matters of conscience or conviction. The apostle Paul admonishes us to work toward unity despite any "minor" differences we may have.

So I'll say again that this is why we must be able to distinguish between essential and non-essential doctrine. That's why I felt led to post an article about a week ago by Hank Hanegraaff dealing with what are the essentials.

I don't believe we can say that Paul expected believers to only agree to disagree from a distance; he exhorted them to be intimately involved with each other despite those minor differences. However, I will also say that there are certain boundaries of respect and/or sensitivity that must be implemented in order for there to be peace.

Thanks for this post, just wanted to say that I am thoroughly blessed and encouraged by the topic and the responses that have been given. I have been struggling with this topic as well and have no words to give but look forward to reading the responses. May the Lord bless this discussion and our hearts before Him :)

"Can two members of the Body of CHRIST really fellowship with one another daily, if they do in fact disagree?"

----

A few behaviors mentioned in Scripture seem utterly impossible for us to attain:

Can we truly do what Christ did and more?
Can we live consistently godly lives?
Will our Father give more than we can think or imagine?

This is one of those issues. Can we enter a true unity with each other? Can we enter a true unity with our Father? The example of our closest human relationship, marriage, we are told we become one with another person via sexual relationship, and that, we understand, should be reserved for our spouse. If, somehow, we become one physically, shouldn't we expect to be able to become one on more important levels - spiritually, soulishly?

Consider how we are expected to relate to our Father. Jesus said He was One with the Father. In His prayer, He prayed as He was One with His Father, we would also be One with them.

He also said if two or three are gathered TOGETHER in His name, He is in their midst. We might think that refers to any gathering of Christians, and not necessarily of something of great spiritual depth, but consider the great scope of the associated promise:

18Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven. 19Again I say that if two of you shall agree on earth as regarding anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by My Father in Heaven. Mt 18:18-19

Rarely any group gathers in Christ and we see a powerful interchange between Heaven and Earth or having anything we ask come to pass by our agreement. We should feel safe in assuming that this agreement must be extraordinary, transcending a normal human gathering.

1 John 1:9 says to be forgiven AND cleansed (cleansing is demonstrable by the way we live) we must confess - homologeo - say the same about any sin we wish to remedy. To say the same means we are in harmony, unity, with our Father. Again, this is evidently a deeper state than merely saying some words, and that deeper homologeo is expected of us, as we join together in spiritual depth with our Father.

We often pray for something with others or we plead with our Father in Scriptural confession, and nothing happens. But in both instances definite results are promised, whether material or behavioral, receiving or changing anything we ask. Again we must conclude this is a deeper than normal human state.

As mere humans, no, we can not do this. As born from above new creations in Christ, restored to the image and likeness of our Creator, we should fully expect to experience perfect unity, whether in immediate communion with each other and our Father, or for an extended time. As spiritual beings, rather than human beings, we should expect harmony, unity, and Oneness to be the norm, and division the exception.

Of course to enter this unity, we must pridelessly lay aside our doctrines, our traditions, our prejudices, our feelings to allow our Anointing to supply all these in our empty vessel of Self. As mere humans, no, we can not do that. Being in communion with our Father, we should expect it -- releasing ourselves to enter a divine communion involving unity.

Unity is a constant theme and requirement of Scripture. Eternal Blessings.

I dont think the fellowship is possible. There certain posters in this forum whom I cannot even call brother in Christ. I address very few as brothers. I do not agree with Sermon Index's attitude that we can disagree with certain aspects of a preacher and can still listen to his sermons. I do not listen to sermons of those who do not hold the whole counsel of God. I may agree with their teachings on God's love but if you do not teach the judgment side of God then I have nothing to do with your teaching. Not that I am Judgmental but I do not believe that I am strong enough to hear such preachers without getting deceived.

Regarding all the historical account of people of different background meeting together, I do not expect Wesley will allow Whitfield to speak in his Church. I may be wrong, but I do not consider it wise.

In my local Church, there was a brother who was part of our Church for sometime but then got deceived with someother teaching. He started believing that we should only preach God's love and should not speak on overcoming sin or pressing on to perfection. During every meeting if the word was on overcoming sin by pressing on to perfection, then he will speak after the main speaker and then speak opposite to what was shared. Once this kept repeating, our elders asked him to keep quite or leave Church. The picture given to him was, our Church is moving in this direction like a bus. if you want to reach the same destination then you can travel with us. If you also trying to drive in another direction by sitting in the bus then it is not good. Better get down of this bus. He got offended and left the Church.

It is worth noting that among the Disciples of Jesus, Matthew is mentioned in Matthew 9:9 and 10:3 as a publican who sat at the receipt of custom in Capernaum. Publicans were basically tax collectors for Rome. Not only were some of them dishonest and would extract more from the people than they owed, they were considered traitors by many and apostates by some.

There was a group of Jews who were part of the Jewish Freedom movement, who believed that paying taxes to Rome was paramount to idolatry. They were first known as Galileans as they were led by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37). They based their charge of idolatry on the First Commandment, as Rome had implemented the cult of emperors throughout the empire in the first century BCE. Taxation was viewed similarly to paying tithe to Caesar, an ancient form of paying tribute to a deity.

Nevertheless, the publicans were viciously hated by the Galileans. Several of the discipes were from Galilee. In fact, in Matthew 26:73 Peter was pinpointed by a group as a Galilean. After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." (ESV) The Galileans were insurrectionists and the crowd knew that this charge against Peter could have gotten him crucified along with Jesus and the other insurrectionists. In other words, the Galileans may have hated the Romans and the people who supported them, but Rome had little tolerance for them either.

Enter the scene another figure, Simon the Zealot in Luke 6:14-16. This man was a Galilean on steroids (so to speak). The Zealots were exactly what their name implied. They received their name from the "zealous" actions of Phinehas in Numbers 25. Many of them were ruthless killers who carried little knives under their clothes to assassinate people with. In fact, they were quite possibly the worlds first terrorists. Their actions led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

Question: how do you suppose a man like Matthew the Publican could have gotten on with Simon the Zealot and all of these Galileans? These people fellowshipped together on a regular basis. They were still under the Old Covenant! These people would rather call fire down from heaven, but yet could get on with a traitorous publican in their midst. Talk about theological differences! They would have had almost nothing in common as to their philosophy of life. They were going in different directions when Christ met them. How could they get along? Daily? In fact, the love of God had not yet been poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit, a characteristic that the New Covenant regenerate are supposed to have received. How did they do it?

I'll tell you. Because the PRINCE OF PEACE was in their midst. If Christ was truly in our midst, we would not have the gall to fight one another. It is our unconsciousness to the presence of Christ that emboldens the disunity. Simon and Matthew? Old Covenant? What a sad commentary on what we proport to have under the New Covenant. If the love of God had truly been poured out into hearts, we would love one another with a pure heart, fervently.

Mary Jane: I am sure that you and I disagree about more than one thing. All we would need to do is talk long enough. Yet there is a bond in the Spirit of God that makes us brother and sister in Christ. I am sure if I met you, I would feel that bond and could fellowship in the Lord despite the differences in opinion. I have such brothers and sisters in Christ, and our differences do not effect our fellowship one bit.

(I am presuming that we are not talking about disagreement over the essentials such as original sin, salvation by grace, the virgin birth, etc..)

We also no that Paul and Barnabas had a falling out over his cousin Mark. Apollos refuses to go to Rome when Paul wants him to go. What is lacking in all of these disputes? A demand that one of them bows down to the other or that any of them elevated themselves over the other. Noe of them used their " position," to try and compel the other to do anything, at least not according to what we read in Scriptures.

I think it is what A.W. Tozer called, history "warts and all." Personally I think it is one of the saddest and lamentable events in the New Testament, and invariably, one that Bible teachers almost always have to make an excuse for. The consequence was separation -- they separated from the separation that the Holy Spirit had separated them together for (edit. that is, Paul and Barnabus).

There is no need for heavy-handedness where submission is found. It is a sad commentary on submission when leaders have to use their authority. I know this first-hand from over 20 years of management experience. Where employees honor the rules, whether they like them or not, I have no trouble. Not everyone agrees with policies, but they don't have to. Same goes with my house. Not everyone understands my rules; but if they are respectful people, they will honor them. If not, depending on how serious it is, I may have to ask them to leave. I have never had to do it, but I have been in christian homes where the owner of the house had to. Very sad. The man didn't know when to stop and suffered a terrible embarrasment.

The New Testament model of church does not work unless there is a willingness to prefer and honor one another. When we insist upon our rights we are behaving like Corinthians.

..............bro Frank

Dear brother, would you at least agree that a person ought to honor the general rules of the areas of another man's stewardship? If I came to your house, would you expect me to comply with your house rules? How would you react if I objected and then suggested you were lording over me because you enforced those rules? What a person does in their own house is their business. What they do on their blogs and sites is their prerogative. All that has been said is that folks who attend the site are asked to obey the house rules. Surely that cannot be too much to ask.

And if the Baptist had something good to say to you about certain aspects of your walk, again, even if it makes for a somewhat uncomfortable setting, I would simply agree with whoever was speaking the truth in love.

Thank you for your kind reply dear brother. If perchance the conversation took a turn you were uncomfortable with, I would have no problem for you saying, "Beloved, can we change the subject?" It would be perfectly in order to do that with no harm to anyone. I wouldn't even ask why, probably. Maybe down the road I may ask. However, if I were to continue after you had tried gently to move things along, it would seem that I would be out of order. This is back to my reference to the Corinthians. As they gathered, everyone had something to contribute, but Paul appealed for things to be done properly and in order. It would be in order and pleasing to the Lord for me to listen to the gentle counsel of the home owner.

Greetings

Thank you for the responses. I will be honest and say that I need to continue to pray over this subject. Have no settled heart on the matter. I still wonder if I am being honest with myself when I say "oh yeah I can fellowship daily as they did in ACTS even if I don't agree with another brother or sister." I know of course with CHRIST all things are possible and that kind of dying to self daily, moment by moment of each day, would require dying to self for sure...

Thanks again
God bless
mj

God bless you, sister MJ. I'm reminded that even Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement. We agree on far more than we disagree -- because our hope is in Christ Jesus.

Jesus' prayer in John 17 is that "they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us..."

Is there any disagreement between the Father and the Son? Do they ever have to "agree to disagree"?

And this is the "template" of unity which the Son of God prays the Father to bring us into as well. Nothing less.

And so Paul, one of the messengers of the Son of God, beseeches "that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1.10).

Paul beseeches for this, not on the basis of our own ability to come to this kind of unity, but "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing..." In other words, there is provision in His Name for this kind of unity.

So we must know that this is what we in the Church are headed for. This is what God has in mind for the Church under the New Covenant, and, impossible as it is, He has what it takes to bring it into being. And is going to do so. He will not settle for less.

Meanwhile, when Paul writes to the Ephesians of the seven-fold facets of unity, he brings up that little word, "forbearance."

"I therefore the prisoner of the Lord beseech you that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called,
With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering [patience] forbearing one another in love;
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4.1-3).

We know where we are headed-- being made one even as the Father and the Son are one.

This-- lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearing [bearing with] one another in love-- is God's provision for us along the way.

Edit to add: With this in mind, my answer to the question in the OP is, "Yes, they can, and ought to."