Church tools and resources

On being Disciple

Part II: … in non-essentials liberty ...

Galatians 5:1 to 13; 1 Peter 2:16; and
1 Corinthians 13:12

If you came to worship today expecting answers to all your questions about all of the controversial issues facing the broader church, you may be somewhat disappointed with this sermon. But if you came to hear of the struggle the church has had over the years discerning between the non-essential issues that often divide us, from the essential issues that should unite us, this might be helpful.

Last week I shared with you a sermon that outlined two basic essentials of our life as church. First is the fact that Jesus Christ is the way for the Christian to know God. And secondly, God created every person and values each one equally. In the diverse nature of each person we come to know more clearly the nature of God who is larger than all of us combined, and yet, we are created in God's image.

Following those two essentials I then talked about practices of the church based in those essentials, from our practice of baptism, the open communion table, the priesthood of all believers, the value of the Bible, the fact that no one denomination/church/person has the whole truth, to the celebration of the wholeness of the church.

With this brief recap in mind, let us begin today's discussion of the non-essentials. For generations the church has been faced with difficult issues that have often felt like threats to the very foundations of faith. For those of us a little older, we have lived through the discussion, the pain, and, in some cases, the blessed resolution of these issues. Many of you could name the list with me: women in leadership, divorce, race, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion, war/peace and today's toughest issue gay/straight. The burning question before many Disciple churches today is what it means to be an umbrella church, an inclusive community, where anyone who confesses Jesus Christ is welcome?

And so what does that mean for people who are living lifestyles that seem to be in conflict with traditional values? Beyond that, is this issue an essential or non-essential issue in the life of the church? As denominations and churches split over this issue it certainly feels essential and yet, in the course of the history of the greater church, it has only been as controversial as it is when it became a political platform issue of discussion between parties and political leadership. Many churches have found lifestyle issues to be the most challenging and difficult ones to work through. Thoughtful, loving, concerned, Christian men and women continue to agonize over how the church should respond. Unfortunately a quick end to this discussion is not evident and its continuing presence often feels like the tail wagging the dog keeping the church from moving forward around the core value of bringing people to Jesus Christ. I don't want to belittle this issue by calling it a distraction, but it has been the issue that has often kept churches from other critical core discussions. It has often drained the excitement and energy out of the room as congregations walk down familiar paths over and over again.

Let me share a story from my past that may have some application.  

When I was growing up in the First Christian Church in Keokuk, Iowa, there was little controversy in the congregation. The racism issue that was dividing much of the country seemed to have little to do with us in a community that at that point was probably 99% white. Of course from time to time there was some tension with the Catholics, and that one Jewish family in town may have been a concern. But for the most point, Keokuk was a town that was exempt from the issues of diversity that was tearing apart much of the nation.

For me, I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood, so I was integrated. And the Jewish family in town only lived two blocks away and their son was part of our neighborhood gang. No big deal. I was as progressive as you could get.

So when the issue came up in church about this national movement in our denomination to let women serve as Elders, I thought, no big deal. Well it was a big deal.

The issue was theoretical, garnering little discussion or attention, until the nominating committee, in their wisdom, made the decision to place before the congregation a woman for Elder. As soon as the slate came out, Bibles started showing up in the pews on Sunday morning (not the usual practice) and persons starting underlining critical passages that either spoke in favor of or against the issue. Pressure was put on the minister to speak out from the pulpit a defining word that would put the issue to rest once and for all. A special meeting of the Elders was called and their decision was to let the nomination stand. A vote of the congregation would be the final word and that vote was still several weeks away.

In the meantime the credentials of the woman nominated was reviewed. Was she Elder material? True, she had led Sunday School music for several years, chaired the Christian Education committee, served on the Diaconate, sang in the choir, had married into a long time First Christian Church family and was a leader in her own right. Her husband had been the Head of the Elders, Chair of the Board, and was very involved in the Regional and General Church as a layman. He was a community leader, as was she. She had served as President of the Arts Council, served on the Hospital Board, attended University Women, belonged to PEO, and served on the Regional CWF Board. But was she Elder material?

True, it appeared that she didn't run for the position. She didn't ask to be the test case. And up to this point in her life she seemed to be a good mom and a solid Christian. And yet, why would she let her name go forward unless she had an agenda? She had never been a radical before; of course the University Women had a tendency to be a little too liberal. Why would she want to do this? Didn't she know that she was close to being in conflict with what the Bible said? In fact, wasn't the Bible absolutely clear on this issue? This could open the door to almost anything. Maybe even divorced people would be offered the chance to serve.

The election was held, and she was voted in for a three-year term. Long-term friendships were tested, even business partnerships, as the husband's long-term business partner left the church with a handful of other couples and began an independent Christian church. I know that tears were shed as change took place, but the walls didn't fall in and the church, after a brief respite, found its legs again and moved forward.

The long-term relationships were patched up, and both congregations, First Christian, and New Testament Christian, continue to be some of the strongest churches in the community. And the woman, who served as Elder, did a great job! In fact she has since been Chair of the Congregation and re-elected as Elder several more times. This woman has had a great history with that church, even through some pretty tough and testing times but continues to offer solid Christian leadership now and will into the future.

When our faith is used to shut the door to people rather than welcome them in, we are treading on some pretty thin ice. True, there are theological and political issues that must be dealt with in the life of the church. And yes, sometimes the processes of the church seem to get out in front of the necessary preparation. But, for the most part, good people, acting in good faith, seeking God's will, grounded in the essentials of faith, will make decisions that sometimes, especially around controversial issues, feel ungrounded and unchristian. And it is when this happens that the ground feels a little unsteady and the whole of our faith seems to be at risk.

Every generation has had its issue and every generation has had to look deep within themselves and deep within scripture to try to discern God's will. And the most frustrating thing is that we often can't come to consensus.

Does that mean that the person who comes out at a different place is wrong? No. Does it mean that someone who can see in the Bible a completely different message is a blasphemer? No. Well, then, what does it mean?

It means that until our death we all will see through a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is only as we come before God that we will know these things face to face.

So what about today at our church? It means that we are to live our lives according to the example and illustration of Jesus Christ. To find in our brothers and sisters: the lepers, the outcasts, the prostitutes, and tax collectors, the chief priests, the scribes, the family man, the good mother, and the innocent child, a divine spark, a unique gift, the face of God.

I cannot, and will not, use my position to tell you how you need to feel about those things that often keep you up at night. Neither life nor faith is that black and white. What I can tell you is that for a Christian, our job is to worship and praise God, to hold before each other and our children the example of Jesus Christ who calls us to love one another. Also, I would remind each of us that every person is uniquely gifted and created by God and to be embraced as a child of God. Finally, the Bible is our best source to understand God's continuing relationship with the people who are faithful to Him. It is not to be worshipped as God is to be worshipped, but seen as a story of faithfulness that directs and inspires our journey as well.

As we continue to journey together my prayer is that this place will be a place that demands the study of God's word, that invites people to open and honest discussion about their life of faith, which encourages worship and praise of God through Jesus Christ, and which offers a place for all who would choose to journey with us.

—sermon series by Doug Lofton. Lofton serves as senior minister as Southport Christian Church, Indianapolis, and is the chair of the General Nominating Committee of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). A PDF file of this series is available for download. Lofton delivered this series in September 2006.