TEXT:

SUBJECT: Spiritual Dialogue in the Church

My talk tonight is on "Spiritual Dialogue in the Church". Most of you would agree that this is a good thing. And so it is. "Let no corrupt communication proceed from your mouth, but that which is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers" writes the Apostle in Ephesians 4:29.

But did you know: every Christian is equipped to improve the dialogue? Not just "some" believers (e.g., the smart, the well-read, the articulate, the experienced, or the men). But each Christian is gifted by Christ to profit all. I Peter 4:10 puts it thusly: "As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the grace of God." It is true that not every believer has the gift of teaching, but no one lacks a unique--and needed--insight.

To remain "out of the dialogue", therefore, is to waste your gift and to rob your brethren. Thus, everyone ought to be involved. Malachi was on to something: "Those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who meditate on His name. `They shall be mine', says the LORD of Hosts, on the day that I make them my jewels..."

But sometimes, they're not. Why not? We shouldn't overlook the obvious: "the cares of the world, the deceitfulness of riches, the pleasures of this life" will unsuit anyone for spiritual dialogue. But there is another factor, one we don't like to admit. It is this: Spiritual dialogue in the church is not always pleasant or profitable. For any conversation but the superficial is bound to produce disagreement and conflict. Few Christians want to offend others; no one wants to feel stupid or to be beaten in an argument. And so, we "go to Plan B". Which may take several forms:

None of these are acceptable alternatives! Christians--of all people--ought to be able to discuss hard questions without rancor and division. To "disagree without being disagreeable". If we can't do this much, Paul chides, we are "carnal, even babes in Christ".

And so, how do we enter into a spiritual dialogue (with its differences of opinion) and still remain united in heart?

In the first place, we must proceed on the assumption that we are brethren. Each believer is united to Jesus Christ, and so, to one another. The Lord said, "One is your master, Christ, and all of you are brethren". The Apostle adds, "Let brotherly love continue..." He wants his readers to love each other--not as enemies or neighbors--but as brethren. Practically, this means that we truly accept each other, even when we sharply disagree. We don't vilify our brethren; we don't call their salvation into doubt; we don't become cold and withdrawn.

This "family feeling" will encourage candor and learning. Its absence can only produce an artificial and shallow unity. When we fear rejection, we can neither help others, nor be helped. At least on matters doctrinal. For "help" assumes ignorance, confusion, or error. And these--to some--disqualify one from "the household of God". And so, instead of discussing his views or seeking help, he just sits in the pew, offering an uneasy "amen" from time to time.

This assumption--that we're brethren even when we disagree--logically precedes everything else I have to say. Until we accept it, spiritual growth and church harmony are impossible.

In the second place, we must respect our brethren even when we disagree them. The "respect" proceeds on two assumptions: (1) No Christian knows everything; and (2) Every Christians knows something. Are the assumptions true? They are. The most learned of all saints admitted his partial ignorance: "For we know in part and we prophesy in part"--and in another place--"Not that I have already attained, or I am already perfected". And every believer has some knowledge: "For they shall all know me--promised God--"from the least of them to the greatest of them..."

The best illustration of this is the relationship between Apollos and Aquilla and Priscilla. About the former, it is said, he was "an eloquent man, mighty in Scripture, instructed in the way of the Lord, fervent in spirit, and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John". About the latter, we find no such praise. They were, it seems, a rather modest Christian couple. But these untrained believers knew something the great orator did not: "they took him aside and explained to him the way of the Lord more accurately..."

What if Apollos had despised them? Or, what if he had turned his debating skills on them? He would have remained ignorant. The great man's respect for other Christians paid rich dividends. It will do the same for you.

Thirdly, we must always "speak the truth in love". If there is a harder directive to follow than this one, I don't know what it is. When we hear something with which we disagree, our tendency is to either: (1) politely agree; (2) say nothing; or (3) contradict with violence. But Paul rules them all out! He wants us to discuss differences both honestly and in love.

What is love? Whatever it is, it is the opposite of "threat". Yet this is how so many differences are handled, under threat. If you don't agree with the church, they'll throw you out. If the church doesn't agree with you, you'll leave. Hard questions that take time and patience are rushed to answer under the pressure of a threat. This is not "speaking the truth in love".

How do we "speak the truth in love?" "Love" is described in I Corinthians 13 as "longsuffering, kind, not envious, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily provoked, not suspicious". In short, "speaking the truth in love" means that your dialogue is neither "offensive" nor "defensive".

In the fourth place, we must be more anxious to learn than to teach. "Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath..." The man who prefers teaching to learning will be proud, and as such, will be a poor listener, won't try to understand, will feel little sympathy, will not brook opposition, and equates differing with him to opposing God.

The man who prefers learning will be the opposite of him in every way. He will listen carefully to another man's point-of-view; he'll ask questions (to understand, not contradict); he'll feel compassion for the mistaken brother; he'll wait on God to resolve the matter.

Fifthly (and this speaks for itself) we must be more concerned with finding the truth than with winning an argument.

Lastly, we must be willing to wait upon God. Full agreement awaits the Second Coming of Christ. The Apostles could not enforce it; the creeds failed, too; church discipline hasn't done it--nothing else will, either. Only "complete sanctification" will bring it about "full doctrinal unity". The former won't be had till the End; neither will the latter. Thus, we have a choice. Shall we:

May God give us wisdom, for Christ's sake. Amen.