by this will they know...
The other day I was browsing through some blogs and I came across an interesting story. Ergun Caner, author of a number of books covering everything from Islam to church history to the church's role in politics, and James White, a well-known Christian apologist, don't seem to be getting along. It's a basic doctrinal disagreement, Caner is a hardcore Arminian (I don't want to take the time to define these terms so here's a link) and I'd even say pretty staunch anti-Calvinist. White, however, is a firm Calvinist (definition here).
Here's how it happened. A post is made on a major Southern Baptist blog (you'll need to scroll down quite a way to find Dr. Caner's comments, his younger brother, Emir, also comments. The whole debate is interesting but if you're short of time do an edit-search "Ergun Caner" and start there) about who will be the next SBC president. Baptists are a bit of a unique denomination because, unlike Methodists (decidely Arminian) or Presbyterians (decidedly Calvinist) they have a mixture of both groups. Men like John Piper fall in the Reformed Baptist camp. Others, like Jerry Falwell, are Arminian. So, in the discussion on this blog, the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism came up repeatedly. This is where Dr. Caner stepped in. If you're familiar with Dr. Caner at all you know a few things about him; 1) generally, a pretty well-spoken individual. 2) extremely, extremely opinionated. 3) very passionate about said opinions. Picture a typical southern baptist preacher getting really fired up as he teaches, and you have a good picture of Dr. Caner. It should also be added that Dr. Caner is currently the Dean of the Seminary at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell's university located in Lynchburg, VA. So, Dr. Caner stepped in and in vintage Dr. Caner style, made his strong opinions known in blunt fashion. This led to a bit of a debate (I use the term loosely) on the blog and, soon, Dr. Caner and a leading Reformed apologist, James White are exchanging e-mails. I'd encourage you to read the exchange before you continue reading here because this is where I stop being a reporter and become a commentator.
I was deeply saddened by the whole thing. Saddened by the immaturity and ineptness of Dr. Caner, who clearly doesn't understand Reformed theology, saddened by the pugnacious tone of both in their e-mails (I greatly respect Dr. White for many, many reasons, but was saddened at how he at times seems to be doing little more than trying to put down his opponents in a clever way. Was Dr. Caner asking for trouble when he claimed to be an, "Armenian"? Yes, of course, however, as funny as White's response was, did that humorous remark do anything to help the discussion? No, it most likely made Dr. Caner feel stupid- which is never the job of a Christian with anyone, much less a brother in Christ- and alienated any Arminian readers of the exchange. But what saddened me most was the realization that we as a church clearly have no clue what Jesus is getting at when he calls us to unity.
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, that you have love one for another."
John 17:20-21 "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may be one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send me."
Did you read the last phrase? "That the world may believe that You sent me." Dr. Francis Schaeffer has unpacked this verse in much greater detail than I will in his book, The Mark of a Christian, but the basic idea Christ is getting at is clear. The world will know that God the Father sent Jesus into the world on the basis of our love for each other as followers of Christ.
Yet, have we ever displayed the kind of unity Jesus is getting at in John 17? Caner and White will fight about Calvinism, but they could work together, I'm sure, in attacking Brian McLaren, the well-known leader within the Emergent community. Or Dr. White could argue with another Calvinist who might only affirm 4 of the 5 main points of Calvinism (see the above article). And Dr. Caner could then go argue with a fellow Arminian, like C.S. Lewis, about theories on how we are made right with God. But then someone like Anne Lamott comes along and Drs. White and Caner aren't even sure where to begin with her because they disagree on so much.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Arminians argue with Calvinists, who argue amongst themselves about how many points to affirm, but all sides can probably join in condemning a fringe figure like McLaren or Lamott, or in attacking a group like Roman Catholics who receive an obscene amount of unfair attacks from Evangelicals. Oh, and they could probably argue about end times theology if they got bored and needed something new to disagree about.
I don't want to suggest these disagreements aren't important, or that all Christians should believe the exact same thing. We need different opinions in the Church, it forces us to keep thinking, and re-thinking, and re-re-thinking what we believe and why believe it, and that's a wonderful thing.
But what I am suggesting is that everyone of these disagreements should be voiced in a way that acknowledges our own limitations as human beings (IE the possibility that I just might be wrong) and the vital importance of unity between Christians. We have to take John 17 seriously, and I don't think we do. If we did would we argue with such angry, ugly language? If we took Dr. White, Dr. Caner, and a non-Christian and put them all in the same room and we told White and Caner that this man's salvation hinged on his seeing Christians loving each other, would they still fight?
Of course not, say what you will about both, they have a tremendous burden to see others become Christians. Yet, is the situation that we are in any different from the scenario I described above? Christ seems pretty clear in both passages, men will know we are Christians and that Christianity is true by our love for each other. But do we show it?
We have to ask ourselves these questions too, if I were locked in a room with Pat Robertson and a non-Christian in the above scenario, would I get along with him? Think of whatever Christian really tweaks you, if you're a fundamentalist, think of a Roman Catholic or an Emergent writer, if you're a big McLaren fan, think of Jerry Falwell, if you're Reformed, think of a man like Dr. Caner.
Could you get along with him/her? More to the point, could you learn to love them?
