These are some of the questions I have been asking myself for years regarding the “Baptist” title. Baptist is one of those names that has become so broad and has developed so many connotations that it is hardly helpful as a name any more. Generally, the Baptist name encompasses almost anyone who professes Christ who does not hold to infant baptism. Apart from that, one can be Calvinistic or Arminian in his soteriology, covenantal, dispensational, etc., in his view of the New Covenant, charismatic or cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit, congregational or elder-ruled with regard to ecclesiology, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the only thing that holds Baptists together is the dryness of their infants.

And that is really important to some Baptists. Some Baptists even put Believer’s Baptism up there with the Trinity and the deity of Christ. But that’s not me. For me, Believer’s baptism is important. It possibly shows one’s view of the Old and New Covenants, it shows his interpretations of certain texts, etc. Even so, it is not a doctrine of the first order to me. It’s not even a doctrine of the second order. So then, why do I continue to identify myself by a label that is not a first or second order doctrine to me? Good question.

Additionally, and probably more significantly, is the association that the Baptist name brings. Without naming names, there are persons who label themselves Baptists with whom I would never sit and eat. Conversely, there are those who don’t label themselves Baptists with whom I would gladly (and do) sit and eat. So why categorize myself with those who I believe are apostate and distance myself from those who I believe are my brothers?

But then there comes the problem of what to call myself. Having no name is not an option. I suppose I could join a church of a different denomination and use that title, but then that doesn’t really address the issue. In fact, it places me in the exact same position I am now, except with different positive and negative associations and different doctrinal differences.

Going back to the question of doctrines and their order of significance, what doctrine or name best identifies the religion of those who follow Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ, of course. Therefore, until I find sufficient reason to be otherwise, I’ll call myself a Christian*. And if anyone wishes for me to elaborate, I gladly will.

And having attended a school and through it becoming familiar with it, I have to say that the presentation of the controversy has been typically one-sided, namely coming from those who are younger who have a general animosity toward those who are older. And though this is not always the case, it is typically the case. Those who are in the seminaries are usually those who are younger, and therefore they reside in a different generation and in a different understanding of the world around them. Therefore, when they hear that the “old folks” in the church do not like the new music, they immediately conclude that they are old fogies who are set in their ways and who are not as “spiritual” and spiritually discerning as they are.

While it is possible that this may be true (with hip speakers like Mark Driscoll inadvertently perpetuating the stereotype), it is possible that it is not true, and that the young in the church have misunderstood and have unfairly categorized those who are older.

The problem that we have now is that there has been a lack of godly conversation over the matter. Instead, both groups have come to the table armed with their presuppositions and callously ignore the sentiments and convictions of the other. Some do it through blunt and unChristlike speech and actions, and others do it through quiet and unmoving resolve, piously presuming that they are above it all. No matter the nature of the response or its appearance, both are wrong and both avoid getting to the heart of the matter.

Having been by Providence born into the younger generation of opinion, allow me to offer some food for thought for those who are younger that I came by through conversations with those are of the older generation. I will do it through the structure of possible “myths”:

Myth 1: Contemporary Music is Opposed Solely upon the Ground of Poor Lyrics:
While it can certainly be argued that a lot of that which we call “contemporary” is doctrinally lacking, some of it is not–perhaps even that which is played in Sunday morning services. We, in our generation, feel that doctrine is the only thing that matters in music, therefore proper lyrics can form in any genre of music. Therefore, to “compromise,” older hymns are ported to newer music upon the presumption that it will cure the ills of the controversy. This is not necessarily the case.

Myth 2: The Music Controversy is Based Solely on the Grounds of Music Preference
Many of us who are younger (and therefore have not seen very much) presume that the crux of the music controversy is a matter of preference of music types and nothing more. We presume that since the type of music does not by itself have an effect on us and our spirits that it does not have the same effect upon others.

One of the most striking observations that I have made when talking to others on the “other side of the fence” is the deep association that they have with certain types of music and godlessness. These, having lived through the sixties and seventies, hear an electric guitar and immediately have brought to their minds such things as drugs, fornication, etc., and when they hear these things in “worship,” their very souls are conflicted within them.

Myth 3:There is no Resolution to the Music Controversy
I have heard some pretty horrible things from the younger side when the music controversy is brought up, the apex of which is the sentiment, “The older folks will die off one day.” I’ve rarely heard this sentiment in those words, but the spirit of it is there in the hearts of some. I hear things like, “The church is dying,” and the blame has been cast solely upon the shoulders of those who have real convictions with regard to particular types of music.

Maybe the church is dying (by that meaning a particular congregation), and maybe it is because of the style of music. Often the blame for it is placed upon the older generation and their unwillingness to “get with the times,” but let me offer a different view of the same situation. Perhaps it’s the not the older generation who is causing the church to die, but maybe it is the younger generation abandoning the church because the style of “worship” does not suit their tastes. Maybe the American consumer mentality has infected a particular congregation to the the extent that they are willing to leave a body of believers because the style of music on Sunday mornings is not meeting their entertainment needs. For them, it is not a matter of conviction, but it is a matter of preference, and it is their preference that drives them not their convictions.

Concluding Thoughts
I know that what I have to offer here might seem to some to be a simplification of an issue in the church that has been oversimplified. I pray that it’s not. My point is simply to step back and view the controversy from a different set of eyes so as to bring up thoughtful discussion, resolution, and healing.

In this day and time and in this culture, there are many things to be divided over, but music is not one of them. And when it comes to such matters, I think the apostle Paul was quite clear on it in Romans 14. To put it briefly, when it comes to matters of congregational fellowship and activity, those who are stronger in certain areas are called to capitulate to those who are weaker by their conscience and convictions.

Not wanting to wrongly label certain groups, but, for argument’s sake, let’s say that in the music controversy the younger generation is the stronger and the older generation is the weaker because of their convictions regarding certain types of music. What if there is a God-fearing older woman whose soul is genuinely troubled at the sound of certain music to the point that she cannot bear to come to church services on Sunday any more. What should the response of the stronger be? Should it be, "Well, she’s probably not saved any way," "She’s stuck in her religion and legalism," or should it be, "Mrs. Jones–a dear saint, sister, and lover of God in Christ–is deeply troubled by this type of music. We love her, and so does Christ, therefore let’s engage in dialog with her so that we can know her heart"? Just a thought.

Assuming that I am not wholly wicked (which is sometimes a shaky assumption), what is it about "church” on Sunday mornings that causes my heart at times to shy away from it rather than be drawn to it? What merit (if any) is there for this disposition of my heart?

Sunday as Weekly Service
One aspect of Sunday mornings that has troubled my heart is the tacit (sometimes not) belief and conviction that Sunday morning is somehow more holy and more important than any other time in the week. It is something for which we are implored to “ready our hearts,” and to “give our best” as though the pinnacle of Christian existence is vested in a Sunday morning time slot. The way I have heard it described by many, it is almost as though it is tolerable to have any state of mind or heart whatsoever at any other time insofar as that state is changed in sufficient time to one that is “prepared for worship.”

In light of this, it is hardly surprising to hear language in a Sunday morning church service that describes a particular locale or building as “the house of the Lord,” and the services rendered in that locale (be it singing, tithes and offerings, or attentiveness) as “sacrifices” or “holy duties.” For the church today is to some tantamount to the temple of the Old Covenant, therefore we exhorted to act as though we were meeting God in his holy place, for we are (by our accounts) meeting God in his holy place.

If we view Sunday morning in this light, it is not difficult to perceive why certain aspects of Sunday morning are at the forefront of Christian debate (as least in our country). For when one speaks about a particular church, the first comments about it are not usually their love for one another or the vibrancy of their fellowship, but it is their style of music, the eloquence of their preacher, and the musical ability (or disability) of their choir. The “selling point” of any church is its Sunday service, and if that is lacking in some way according to our personal preferences, we consider it a poor church not worth our presence though it may be a mile from our home.

What is telling about those aspects of Sunday mornings which we find to be of utmost importance is that we would be hard-pressed to validate the worth to which ascribe them from the pages of Scripture. Of course we will find each of them in the Scriptures (well, except for choirs and service dramas), but their importance is not relegated to practice at a particular time (viz. Sunday mornings), but they are to characterize the life of the saint and the continual disposition of the church (i.e. the people of God not the building). Concerning music and its role in the life of the saint, the apostle Paul writes:

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:15-21).

Now, the meaning of the apostle is clear. He does not have in mind a once-a-week service, but he has in the mind the entire life of the Christian and the church universal (i.e. all those who have been bought with the blood of Christ). For he commands, “Look carefully how you walk,” not, “Look carefully how you meet on Sunday mornings.” This manner by which we are to walk (i.e. live our lives) is to be one that is a continual filling of the Spirit so that we are so filled with the Spirit that it overflows in the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”

Now, this disposition and practice may certainly be done on Sunday morning gatherings of the church, but it is certainly not to be limited to Sunday mornings nor is Sunday to be viewed as the apex of these things. Sunday mornings should be a representation of how the church has conducted herself throughout the week not a formal event for which we dress up our bodies and our conduct into that which it was not before.

Sunday is not the Sabbath
One of the more puzzling beliefs concerning Sunday to me is this belief that Sunday is the new Sabbath and that Jesus abolished Saturday (i.e. the seventh day) as the Sabbath. And though it would be difficult to pinpoint where this belief concerning Sunday arose (be it in the catholic church or Chick-fil-a), it is more difficult to pinpoint where this belief arises from in Scripture. Yes, we do find in Scripture that the saints met together on Sunday (i.e. the Lord’s Day) as a celebration of his Resurrection, but this is hardly proof that this was viewed by the church as the new Sabbath replacing the old. If anything, it is evidence of the church’s view that the Sabbath concerned those who were in the Old Covenant under the old creation, and the Lord’s Day is a celebration and a recognition of the New Covenant and the New Creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—the Firstborn from the dead in the recreation of all things.

Indeed, as Douglas Wilson pointed out, being that the Sabbath was originally an ordinance of the first creation and was later instituted into the Old Covenant, the only thing that would abolish or change such an ordinance would be a New Creation. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what we find in the Lord’s Day, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—the inauguration of the New Creation. Furthermore, it is for this reason that the apostle the Hebrews is able to speak of the Sabbath in terms of shadow (as he does the rest of the Old Covenant) in that it points the Sabbath Rest—the Eternal Rest of the saints of God (cf. Heb. 4).

To Be Continued…

And in the case of religion whereas this traditionalism against truth reared its fleshly head in the Jews who were thus blinded to the Messiah for whom they were looking, and in the Catholic church whose papal decrees and councils blinded it to the Gospel of our Lord, so too now many Baptists have taken up with great zealotry the doctrines of believer’s baptism and baptism by immersion without regard for the foundation upon which it was built. These have perpetuated divisions in God’s church by holding onto the spoils of a battle long past, and these have cherished the spoils and yet have forgotten and even contradicted those who fought the battle that produced the spoils.

To understand how we have drifted from those who spilt their blood for the sake of what is called believer’s baptism, we must understand the context in which that battle was fought. It began not too long after the Reformation began, where the church of Christ was being delivered out from under the oppression of the Catholic church that was much more political than it was spiritual. Because of the Catholics and their power, they ravaged the church of Christ and through fear of superstition gained power over the peoples of Europe, even to the extent of making the Pontiff of Rome the king of the kings of the nations. Because of this, there was a welding of the church and state whereby there was no distinguishing between the church and the government. The government was the church, and the church was the government. It was a most natural thought to the citizens of these Roman controlled states, and it is for this reason that the early reformers did not seek to break the division between church and state. They had no categories for such a division, so they attempted to practice holiness and righteousness within the confines of that which they had only ever known.

A since the church was the state and the state was the church, the ordinance by which men were admitted into the church was the same ordinance by which they were admitted into the state, namely baptism. Therefore, when a baby was baptized by the church, he was simultaneously admitted into the institute named the “church” and was made a citizen of the state in which he dwelled. Therefore, the ordinance of baptism was not merely an ecclesiastical issue, but it was also a political issue, and, therefore, to reject the doctrine of the baptism of infants was not merely considered heterodoxy, it was considered treason against the state.

It is in this context in which we find those who were called Anabaptists (meaning baptized again). These, despite many of whom were heretics, saw in the Scriptures that the church of Christ is not an institution that is synonymous with the state, but it is the elect of God, it is those who were called by God out of the world (ekklesia meaning called [from the Greek root kle] out [from the Greek preposition ek]). These saw from the Scriptures that the church was not to be comprised of both non-believers and believers (as it was in the state-church system), but the church was to be comprised of the elect only, purifying itself by the Word of Christ and by discipline in holiness. The church was to be to the world a city on a hill, a light for the unregenerate people, and salt to the earth, flavoring the unrighteous world with righteousness.

For this reason, when they saw in the Scriptures that it was only those who have believed in Christ and repented from worldliness who were baptized and admitted into fellowship with the saints, these rejected the doctrine of infant baptism whereby all people, elect and reprobate, were allowed in the church of Christ thereby defiling the church and making her a harlot rather than a purified Bride of our Lord. And since these rejected infant baptism and re-baptized those who were regenerate alone, they were counted by the state and the church as rebels and traitors. The church and state fell upon them as they would a terrorist, and many of them lost their lives brutally both to Catholic and Protestant states.

And it is in this context that we are to judge the zeal by which we as Baptists propagate our most holy of doctrines–baptism by immersion alone. Do we do it in the same line as those who spilt their blood, namely for the sake of the purity of the church and growth in holiness, or do we do it for the sake of some tradition in which we find ourselves and for the sake of our supposed biblical accuracy with regard to our practice of the shadow of baptism? I would ask you to survey the typical Baptist church in our country and think upon what you see. Do you see a church that is actively seeking to purify itself of worldliness by only fellowshipping with those who are of Christ, boldly teaching God’s people the Word of our Lord and disciplining its members? Or do you see a church that is so enamored with preserving the proper administration of shadow that they have neglected the very purpose for which those who fought for its proper administration died?

Sadly, it cannot be denied that the latter is the case. Many American Baptists have become so dogmatic and legalistic with the proper administration of baptism that they have wholly forgotten what its significance is. These are like modern day Pharisees who would circumcise on the Sabbath if it were the eighth day, and yet they wholly forgot that, “No one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical; but a Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rm. 2:27,28). We like them, have become so ensnared by a symbol and a shadow that we have forgotten the reality for which they stand as symbols and shadows. For if you were to ask any Baptist what baptism truly is, I doubt that you would scarcely find five out of a hundred who could testify to you the marvelous work of the Spirit of Christ for the sake of our obedience, righteousness, and glory (cf. Rm. 6-8:17; Ez. 36:25-27).

Despite our misunderstanding of baptism and our supposed allegiance to its historical adminstration, we as Baptists have with our present day practices spit upon the dashed bodies of our forbearers. These who fought and died to separate the church of Christ from the godless state would be appalled by the way by which we not only do not repel the world from our fellowship but tempt the world to come into our midst. We as Baptists, with our church growth philosophies and our Field of Dreams mentality, Sunday after Sunday, week after week, and year after year, devise new schemes to make ourselves more attractive to the fallen world. We, opposed to our predecessors, do not view the church as the gathering of God’s saints alone for teaching and reproof, but we view the church as the concert hall by which we entice the world with our rock-star portraiture of Jesus so that we can trick them into praying some conjured prayer and into filling out a membership card so that we can add another butt to our seats and another tithe to our offering plates. We therefore preach “relevant” sermons that do not offend, and we paint pictures of emasculated Jesus who frolics in fields with fluffy lambs and who is going sob for you until you choose to make him your Savior. We care nothing about the holiness of our people, we only care about numbers; we do not care about their faith and repentance, we only care that they have written their spiritual birthday in their Bibles; and we do not care that they are generous to the widowed and the orphaned, we only care that they give ten-percent of their untaxed income so that we can fund our middle-class lifestyles and build bigger buildings and flashier stages by which we can lure more of the world into our midst.

So then, if you as a Baptist wish to honor the deaths of those who went before you, do not seek it through building monuments to them and through the dogged administration of a shadow, but seek it through the purification of God’s church from worldliness and worldly growth tactics. For I promise you that the modern paedobaptist church who actively seeks to cleanse itself from worldliness through godly discipline and accountability pays a greater tribute to the martyred first Baptists than we who bear their name.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:1-7).

When we think upon the writings of Paul compared to our own context, it is interesting to think about those whom he is addressing. He is not writing to the First Baptist Church of Ephesus or to the Ephesus Presbyterian Church or to the Reformed Church of Ephesus, but he is writing to the church at Ephesus. And what exactly does the apostle mean when he says that he is writing to the church at Ephesus? He explains this at the beginning of his letter: “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1:1). Therefore, his letter (shockingly) is intended for all who are in Christ in Ephesus–who have been bought with his blood and who share in the Blessing of his Spirit.

Though we are not told how many souls comprised the church at Ephesus, it is safe to assume, granting the size of the city of Ephesus, that there were many and that they were scattered throughout the great city in multiple congregations. Yet despite this, Paul addresses them as a single body comprised of those who are set apart for God and are faithful in Christ Jesus.

In our present context, the apostle’s address of the Ephesian church in this way is strange to us. Because of centuries of religious distortion, the church has been transformed from those who are the Lord’s (church from the northern dialect’s kirk from the Greek’s kuriakos- “Of the Lord”) to a sacred building intended to house worship services on Sundays. The distortion is profound, for it rails against Christ’s declaration that his people would not worship geographically but in Spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4:23), and it reinstitutes the shadow which Christ himself fulfilled. God’s people alone are the Church, and to label any building, place, or group that is not the faithful saints of God in Christ “the church” is a misnomer and a false declaration.

Taking Paul’s declaration of the church and applying to the text from Ephesians 4, it is an extraordinary exhortation. For he is exhorting a church comprised of multiple congregations and, no doubt, differing opinions on doctrine, to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (v. 4:3). This point cannot be missed. The apostle is not exhorting particular congregations to be at peace within their own congregations merely, but that all of the saints in Ephesus would be at peace with one another. Such a declaration would be no less extraordinary than exhorting the saints who comprise the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran congregations all within a quarter mile of one another on Six Forks Road in Raleigh to eagerly seek peace and unity with one another.

And this unity within the Church of God is not something that is merely icing on the cake of Christianity, but the apostle calls it the fruit of “[Walking] in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (v. 4:1). In other words, unity within the Body of Christ, i.e. unity among all the saints of God, is accomplished by Christians walking as they ought to walk.

How then are we to walk so that we, the saints of God, are unified as one body? The apostle writes, “[Walk] with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love” (v. 4:2). All these things when practiced by the people of God bring about unity in the Body. For when God’s people are humble, they understand who they are and the darkness from which they were brought and therefore understand that all who are saints of God are being brought from that same former darkness. This humility makes the people of God gentle people, for God was gentle with them in their own lack of understanding and sin. Recognizing God’s gentleness with them, the people of God are patient toward one another, suffering long with one another’s flaws knowing that God has long suffered their flaws. All these things culminate in love for one another, understanding the great love with which God has loved them, they are therefore eager to return it to those whom God loves.

When all these things are practiced by the saints of God, unity occurs. And it is not a man-created unity, but these things, being fruits borne by the Spirit of God, are a Spirit-created unity. For where the Spirit is present, unity is present, because, as the apostle writes:

There is one body (i.e. one church) and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (v. 4:4,5).

The issue, therefore, is not an issue of unity of all those who label themselves “Christians,” but it is an issue of everyone whom God has called to himself. It would be foolish to strive for unity with those like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., who do not worship the same God as we worship or with those who profess Christ but live unholy lives, but when our God is singular, our Savior is singular, and his Word is singular, why then are we divided into many? I have heard it said by some that denominations are a necessary evil, but I believe the apostle Paul by his exhortation begs to differ. The greatest problem that we as the church face is not our doctrinal differences, but it is our unwillingness to be humble, gentle, patient, and loving to those whom God has been humble, gentle, patient, and loving. Oftentimes, we are more like Pharisees than we are Christians, measuring out a tenth of our mint, dill, and cumin, while neglecting love and mercy. If we were able by the Spirit to become humble, gentle, patient, and loving people, I sincerely believe that right doctrine would naturally follow.

Covenants: Unconditional or Conditional?
One matter that greatly shaped my former opinion on the practice of divorce was that of marriage being a covenant and a former professor’s teaching on the nature of covenants. And while I still highly esteem this teacher, I must say that I absolutely disagree with his view of the covenant, namely that a covenant is an unconditional agreement between two parties. His opinion on all covenants being unconditional is founded upon the New Covenant where the promises of God are not able to be thwarted by human design or transgression. We Christians often call this the “unconditional” love of God, whereby he saves sinners and continues to love them in spite of their constant failings.

While it is indeed true that God has covenanted with his people to such an extent that he loves them and is faithful to them though they fail, it is a misnomer to call God’s love and covenant “unconditional.” God’s love demonstrated in the New Covenant is very much conditional, however, whereas most covenants require that two parties fulfill particular conditions to prevent nullification, in the New Covenant, God fulfills all of the conditions. And since God does not fail and since the New Covenant is fulfilled entirely by him, his Covenant does not fail. And it is for this very reason that Jesus Christ became flesh and fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law on our behalf and died for our transgressions so that God might fulfill his Covenant with us and demonstrate his righteousness doing so (cf. Rm. 3:25, 26). God’s love for his saints is very much conditional, and it rests entirely on Jesus Christ’s work and his pleading for us (cf. Rm. 8:34).

This fact of the New Covenant not being unconditional but rested fully in God fulfilling its requirements is seen clearly at its inception to Abraham. In Genesis 15, God covenants with Abraham that he will give to his offspring the Promised Land as their inheritance, and he demonstrates his commitment to this covenant in the picture of him passing through the divided animal carcasses. Where in a typical covenant agreement both parties would pass between the animal carcasses, stating essentially, “May what has happened to these animals happen to me if I do not fulfill the stipulations of our covenant,” God alone passes through the animal carcasses as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch, demonstrating that he alone will fulfill all the requirements of the covenant. And God did indeed fulfill all of the requirements of the covenant, wounding and bruising his own Son so that he might secure the Inheritance he promised to the offspring of Abraham (cf. Is. 53; Rm. 9:5-13).

Therefore, when we speak of marriage being a covenant, it is not an agreement that is unconditional and thus can never be voided, but it is as all covenants are–an agreement with stipulations. It is for this reason that when we are married we say certain vows, for in those vows we declare to our spouses that we will fulfill those conditions lest we nullify our marriage. Therefore if marriage is indeed a covenant and if one party transgresses that covenant and is thus “unfaithful,” the covenant is broken and can therefore be rightly nullified. Whether the covenant is nullified or not is dependent upon the transgressed party, but as far as the covenant is concerned, it is broken and must either be canceled or reformed.

What God has Joined Together, Let not Man Separate
In what is a notorious dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees, the Pharisees bring forth the question to Christ, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Mt. 19:3). The root of such a question is the reality behind its asking, for there were in Jesus’ day Jews who considered it lawful to divorce their wives for any reason that they saw fit to relieve themselves of their marriage. Christ responds to this ridiculous question from the institution of marriage from the creation, saying:

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?” So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (vv. 19:4-6).”

Thinking that they trapped Christ in his response, the Pharisees then ask, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (v. 19:7). Christ responds:

Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery (v. 19:8,9).

In this, Christ addresses the heart of their question. First, he says that it is because of their hard hearts that God allowed divorce, and, second, he rebukes their licentious practice with the declaration that if anyone divorces his spouse for any other reason apart from sexual immorality, he is an adulterer. In other words, if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than covenant unfaithfulness, he is a transgressor of the law of marriage.

Despite Christ’s appeal to the covenantal nature of marriage, many, including myself formerly, have turned this passage around legalistically, and they do this thusly: First, they look upon Christ’s reference to the prelapsarian institution of marriage and how God had ordained that in a world apart from sin, marriage was to be a life-long bond between a man and woman to such an extent that they are considered “one flesh.” Secondly, they look upon the perfect will of God that what he has joined together, man would not separate. Thirdly, they look upon the statement that it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites that God gave them the law of divorce, and thus they conclude that all divorce is a result from hard-heartedness. From these things they conclude that since Christians should not have hard hearts and since hard-heartedness is the reason behind the Mosaic institution of divorce, there is then no cause whatsoever for divorce by Christians.

The problem with such a conclusion is that Christ clearly gives the stipulation, “Except for sexual immorality,” after he has given the divine ideal. By doing thus, Christ declares that marriage is indeed a covenant, and as a covenant requires the faithfulness of two parties, and if one party is unfaithful, the covenant is nullified. It is for this reason that he says that if a man divorces his wife apart from sexual immorality and marries another he is an adulterer, and, to put it positively, if a man divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and marries another he is not an adulterer. The heart of the matter is not as many have made it out to be–that divorce is always an unacceptable practice by hard-hearted people–but that divorce practiced out of callous licentiousness for the sake of selfish desire and without just cause is against the design of God. To claim, as many do, that even sexual immorality (i.e. covenant unfaithfulness) is not just cause for divorce, is tantamount to calling Christ a liar.

Husbands, Love your Wives as Christ Loved the Church
When considering a case in Christian marriage where the wife has committed sexual immorality and has thus broken the covenant of marriage, the most quoted passage concerning the offended husband is that from Ephesians 5. There the apostle Paul writes:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body (vv. 5:25-30).

Many who claim no cause for divorce often quote this passage without qualification, simply quoting the part, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church,” implying that in all ways that Christ loved the church, husbands are to love their wives. Therefore, they conclude that since Christ has fully reconciled the church to himself who transgressed against him that husbands therefore are commanded to reconcile with their wives no matter the transgression (This is to say nothing of forgiveness, for we are all commanded to forgive all transgressions that are committed against us, but it is a matter of covenant reconciliation). Are husbands from this passage therefore commanded, against the allowance of Christ in Matthew 19, not to divorce their wives even in the case of sexual immorality?

The problem with such a conclusion is that the apostle is not saying that husbands should love their wives in every way that Christ loved the church, but he qualifies it. To say that husbands must love their wives in this way would be to say also that husbands must live righteously for the sake of their wives, they must intercede to God for the sake of the wives, they must die for the sake of their wives’ sins, etc.–all of which are obviously absurd conclusions. In what way then are husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church? The apostle clarifies this, writing, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … husbands should love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.” In other words, husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves. No husband is to seek his own selfish desires at the expense of his wife, but he, like Christ, is to love his wife as he loves himself and is to seek after her good as he would seek after his own good. She is by covenant one flesh with him, and not to seek her good would be despising his own flesh.

How then does covenant unfaithfulness play into this passage? It plays a vital role, for it severs the one flesh union between husband and wife. When, in this instance, a wife commits adultery and thus becomes one flesh with another man, the very foundation for this command is rendered moot. For the husband is commanded to love his wife as his own flesh for he is by covenant one flesh with his wife (v. 5:31), however when his wife joins herself to another man, that union is sundered and the covenant is broken. Therefore, the passage, in its strictest sense, applies to a union between husband and wife that has not been marred by a breech in covenant by sexual immorality.

Final Thoughts
All of this is not to say, however, that men by the grace of God are wrong to mend a marriage covenant broken by sexual unfaithfulness, but it is to say that men should not be judged and condemned for not mending it. There is no biblical warrant for condemning men (or women) for seeking the release of divorce when their spouses–they who vowed to be faithful to their spouses till death–renege on those vows a join themselves to another. Much too often, we in our legalism have created laws that God has not created and then judge men by those laws. In the case of a man or woman who has had to undergo the severe pain, heartache, and emotional turmoil and devastation cause by a spouse’s unfaithfulness, we in the church many times, rather than turning with grace and compassion to them in their time of deep need, spit on them and kick them with our man-made laws. And to worsen and to prolong that heartache as long as we can, we look upon them as outcasts and as unfit to serve in the church of God. They, because of something they would never had chosen and detest to their very core, are marred by us for life because of the wicked decision of another. We expect them to give grace where we in the church are willing to give none, and we expect them to offer reconciliation while we in the church refuse it to them. My prayer is that we will not add laws where God has given none, and that we will be gracious and loving to those who have been torn and emotionally destroyed by marital unfaithfulness and divorce from it.

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up (Rm. 15:1,2).

As God has ordained it, his church is comprised of many people of many varying strengths and degrees of faith (cf. Rm. 12:3). And in spite of these variances, God has ordained that his church be one Body, united for the sake of his glory. And as such, the attainment of unity in the church for the sake of God’s glory must come through love and longsuffering, for the church at present remains in a fallen world and will, because of the variance within it, contain those who fail.

For this reason, the apostle calls the strong in the church to bear with the failings of the weak. For it is the strong who have the greater ability for love and longsuffering, and it is the strong who give to the church strength and maturity, and they who have such strength and maturity have the greater responsibility in the church for the accomplishment of unity.

And though there is this goal of unity through longsuffering, it must be accomplished through proper means with the proper end. What that proper end is not, the apostle writes, is “to please ourselves.” For a semblance of unity can be obtained in the church because of selfishness, whereby the strong bear the weak for the sake of their personal gain. This personal gain can manifest itself in filled pews, large offerings, and the lack of strife out of absence of accountability–all of which are done not for the sake of the weak but for the sake of the strong. This unity in the church obtained by selfish desire is not a unity that is glorifying to God, and it is not a unity that grows and strengthens the weak.

The proper end of unity through longsuffering, however, is, as the apostle writes, the “pleasing of his neighbor for his good, to build him up.” In other words, the strong are to bear the failings of the weak, not for selfish reasons, but so that the weak might obtain their good, which is to be built up in the church and in faith. And this is to be accomplished by “pleasing our neighbor.” In the context, this is not the pleasing of our neighbors in all things, but it is, as Romans 14 teaches, the pleasing of our neighbors in those things which are matters of opinion. It is, as the apostle writes, “not to destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (Rm. 14:20). For there are things that are not to be suffered in the weak that pertain to holiness and godliness, but convictions concerning days and festivals and foods and drinks, etc. are not to be among them. And since it is the strong who have the greater understanding that “everything is indeed clean,” they are to endure the present misunderstandings of the weak, so that they who are weak might one day become strong.

Therefore, those who are strong, for the sake of the weak, must keep the faith that they have between themselves and God and not place in front of the weak a matter which may cause them to stumble. “For,” as the apostle writes, “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rm. 14:17), and unity must be obtained through the longsuffering and love of the strong.

What then is speaking the truth in love? If you were to take a random survey of people in our country, you would likely receive a host of different answers. If you were to ask the question of a person of a postmodern persuasion, you would likely get an answer similar to, “Speaking the truth in love is not speaking at all, for truth is relative to the individual, and to force one’s opinion of truth upon another is offensive and intolerant and therefore unloving.” If you were to ask it of another, you might get the answer, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing what is true in such a way that it presents one’s view of truth as an opinion thereby making compliance to it optional and thus making it inoffensive.” If you were to ask it of one who professes to be a Christian, you might get an answer like, “Speaking the truth in love is sharing the truth of God’s Word in a way that is not judgmental and that withholds matters that might offend a person and turn them away from a church or the Faith.”

And though you obviously might get other answers if you were to speak to others, there is a common thread that runs through most of the answers that you would receive, namely, you are not to be offensive in what you speak. It is the common thread of American morality and individualism–that each person is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions and to question one’s opinion is intolerant and unloving. According to this morality, the highest expression of love is to let one be himself and not to stifle that which makes him a special individual. Therefore, the highest expression of love is, first, to love and to esteem one’s self, and, second, to allow others to love and to esteem themselves in the same way that one esteems himself. Therefore, one must look upon himself as his own end, and his truth is not to transcend himself so as to impose it upon others.

This type of morality is simply self-idolatry, for one’s chief end is himself and his expressions of truth and love do not transcend himself. It is self-worship, and its influence has not been contained to the secular culture. In the church, it is demonstrated in the gross individualization of God’s Word–the Word of Truth that by its Authors transcends all. It is seen in such questions raised of God’s Word as, “What does this passage mean to you?” and it is seen in the consumer mentality that imbues the American church: “How do you like the church you attend?” “How is the music?” “Do the services move you?” “Is the preacher a good speaker?” “Are the seats comfortable?” “What clothes are you allowed to wear?”–and on the questions go that demonstrate that even we who claim to worship Christ claim to worship him with the real end of worshiping ourselves. We, by and large, do not go to church to worship Christ and to build up his Body, but we go to church to edify ourselves and ourselves alone. Thus when something happens in a church that offends us or hinders our self-worship, we pack our bags and leave to find another church that will allow us to worship ourselves unhindered.

How our self-worship affects speaking the truth in love is undeniable, for we in our present moral mindset seek to speak the truth in a manner that does not ruffle another’s feathers so that we in turn might not have our feathers ruffled. We do not care so much that there is Truth that is to be adhered to or holiness that is to be pursued, but we care that there be a place and fellowship maintained that will allow us to continue in our self-centered religion. We might study God’s Word in our services and Sunday school classes, but there is no room for corporate accountability and discipline, and there is no room for Truth that transcends the individual. Thus God’s Word becomes merely a matter of personal opinion even in the church, and to challenge one’s personal opinion or conviction on the Word of God is to speak the truth in an unloving way.

Presuming for a moment that this view of speaking the truth in love is not the correct view, what then is the correct view of speaking the truth in love?

1. Speaking the Truth in Love is To Worship God Alone
Before we can rightly answer the question, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must first understand that all people exist for the sole purpose of worshiping God and that all things exist for sole purpose of glorifying God. Not to understand this most basic of all truths is to misunderstand everything. It is through this lens that we must judge all of reality, and it is through this lens that we must answer our present question. Any philosophy or notion of truth that does not find its end in the worship and the glory of God is false and cannot properly answer the question of speaking the truth in love. Therefore, when we ask the question in the church, “What is speaking the truth in love?” we must ask does our present answer to the question find its end in the worship of God, or does it find its end in the worship of ourselves?

Therefore we must ask the question, “What does God ask of us to worship and to glorify him alone?” This question immediately removes us from the self-idolatry that is so common in the American church, and it places our lives in the balance of God’s glory alone. And what does God require of his people to worship him properly? We find the answer to this question in those whom God predestined before the foundation of the world, namely they are “to be conformed to image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn of many brothers” (Rm. 8:29). Therefore, for those who are called to be saints, their worship of God finds its greatest expression in becoming like Jesus Christ. This is expressed elsewhere as being “holy in all your conduct” (1Pet. 1:15; cf. 1Pet. 1:13-21), obeying God’s commandments (cf. Jn. 14:15; Rm. 6:15-23; 1Jn. 5:2), and loving God with all our being (cf. Deut. 6:5; Mt. 22:37), for this is the manner in which Christ perfectly conducted himself while he walked upon this earth.

Therefore, speaking the truth in love must have the end of glorifying God through holiness, obedience, and loving God, for this is the manner in which God has called his saints to worship him. Any notion of speaking the truth in love that does not have this end is a false notion of speaking the truth in love.

2. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Understand the Truth of God
It seems to be a most obvious statement that before one can speak the truth in love he must understand the truth, but how much of our lives do we invest in knowing the truth of God? If our calling in this life is to holiness, to obedience, and to loving God as he prescribes, how are we to do these things unless we know what God has spoken? The answer is simply that we cannot, and it is for this reason that God instructed Joshua to “meditate on [the Law] day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all is written in it,” and why David spoke, saying, “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps. 119:11). Our worship of God therefore is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word, and therefore our speaking the truth in love is contingent upon our knowledge of his Word as well.

3. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Build up the Body of Christ
Being that God has ordained that he would call a people to himself, and that that people would be a fellowship of God’s people existing for the mutual edification of one another in holiness, speaking the truth in love must exist to build up the church in holiness. The apostle Paul puts it this way:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph. 4:11-16).

This passage of the apostle is the fullest exposition of speaking the truth in love, and it would be helpful to understand in its entirety. First, we see that God has ordained that there would be offices in the church that would exist for the purpose of the building up the body of Christ so that the church would attain the unity of faith and of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church would grow into the fullness of Christ. These offices were ordained so that men could guide the church to glorify God by becoming holy and obedient through the knowledge of God’s Word. Second, this building up of the church by the prescribed offices were done also to prevent the church from being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, and by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” In other words, there is a proper manner by which the church is to live that is prescribed by God, and an improper one that is devised by men and demons. Therefore, the offices that God has ordained exist, one, to build up the church in Knowledge and, two, to prevent the church from being deceived by false doctrine.

Third, these two things, i.e. growing into the fullness of Christ through the unity of faith / the knowledge of Christ and the dispelling of the false doctrines of men and demons, are called “speaking the truth in love.” We know this is so, because, one, the “truth” spoken of is called earlier, “the knowledge of the Son of God,” and the “love” has the purpose of growing the church into Christ (“fullness of Christ” from earlier), of holding and joining it with that which is equipped (“to equip the saints for the work of ministry” from earlier), and for its working together properly in the building up in love (“the unity of faith” from earlier). Therefore, the “speaking the truth in love” is not so much the means in which the truth is spoken, but it is the end for which it is spoken, namely the building up of the church into the fullness of Christ. However, the end of love does indeed dictate the means, for the fullness of Christ is dictated by what was called earlier, “the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”

Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done in seeking the unity of faith and the unity of the knowledge of Christ. When one speaks the truth in love he must it do so for the sake of the unity of the one Faith. And while there are many notions of unity, most of which center upon the capitulation of doctrine and truth and upon tolerance, the unity of which the apostle speaks is the particular unity of faith or belief. It is, in the context, not the capitulation of doctrine, but it is the teaching of doctrine. And it is for this reason that God has established church offices, so that the church might be taught rightly and be united under proper doctrine. And being that there is only one Faith, unity must be established under that Faith alone. Likewise, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we are called to united under him alone through the knowledge of him alone. And it is for this reason that the apostle wrote earlier, “There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (vv. 4:4-6). Therefore, speaking the truth in love is done for the sake of unity–a unity that is bound by sound doctrine under the one Faith and Lord to which God calls and draws men.

4. Speaking the Truth in Love Must Seek the Good of him to Whom it is Spoken
Though when the apostle speaks of speaking the truth in love he is speaking particularly of the edification of the church, oftentimes speaking the truth in love must be done to individuals in particular instances. Therefore when the speaking the truth to individuals is done, it must be done in love. What then is loving to an individual? Taking into account that which we have already determined, loving an individual is desiring that they glorify and worship God alone, that they know the Truth, in order that they might be equipped for ministry in the church. Any desire to speak the truth outside of these ends is not to speak the truth in love.

Also, speaking the truth in love to individuals must be done in such a manner that those ends are evinced. For while one might inwardly desire to speak the truth to a soul so that he might glorify God by knowing the truth so that he might serve well in the Body, not demonstrating that by tone and declaration can prove to be futile. For speaking the truth to an individual will, more often than not, incite animosity and offense in the one to whom it is spoken, therefore it must be clearly demonstrated that the end of such truth-speaking is loving that person as God desires us to love one another. And though we can count on resistance to the truth even when spoken in love, we must do so in faith that the Spirit of God will take that which was spoken in truth and love and will use it to unify the Body in the proper knowledge of Christ.

Final Thoughts
From this brief survey, what is speaking the truth in love? It is, in short, the speaking of truth for the end of glorifying God through its proclamation so that individuals in the church might be called together in the unity of the knowledge of Christ in order that the church might be equipped for ministry. It is the loving of God and of others to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves and our esteem by men by boldly speaking that which God has spoken. For the proper loving of men is done through the proclamation of truth, and the proper proclamation of truth is done through loving men. Neither can be done without the other to the glory of God.

To understand the great difficulty that the SBC causes with regards to missions, one simply has to look at a decently sized Southern Baptist church. In those churches you might find missionaries who go through the International Mission Board into the nations, but you are likely to find a greater number being sent out directly by those churches thereby by-passing the IMB. The purpose is not that those churches desire to establish their own international identity apart from the IMB, but it is because the IMB has made the process of sending out missionaries so difficult that many who would desire to be missionaries have looked upon the IMB as a great barrier rather than as a great help. They look at the mandatory education requirements and the strict doctrinal conformities and then turn their backs on the IMB and its numerous hoops and look for other options.

Some within the SBC have started to rise up against this in the name of what is being called the “Great Commission Resurgence,” however, despite what motions might be passed in the Southern Baptist Convention (which was held yesterday), those motions are operating within the petty, corporate conglomerate of today rather than in the missionary alliance of yesteryear. It has come to a point in the SBC where it is more likely that anti-abortion legislation would be passed in the U.S. Congress than there would be any drastic restructuring in the SBC for the sake of the Gospel. For the SBC will never operate as ought while is burdens itself with its numerous anti-Gospel and anti-Church organizations, and it will never relieve those burdens while there are people in “power” who take a personal stake in the SBC over the vitality of the Church and the Gospel.

All this is to say that the Southern Baptist Convention has exhausted its validity as pro-Church and pro-Gospel organization. Its Americanization into a corporate business with a self-proclaimed Christian identity has destroyed its ability to be about the work of Christ and his Kingdom. She has through her seminaries, publishing houses, and doctrinal decrees usurped the local church’s role as the teacher of doctrine and has adequately solidified the Roman division between clergy and lay persons in Baptist churches. Therefore, if there is to be any revitalization of local, Baptist churches and any concerted effort for missions among those churches, it will have to be done outside of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Though I find myself agreeing with Piper on his stance on baptism and church membership, it is not because I have wavered in what I believe is biblical concerning baptism (see Why I am a Baptist). I have, however, since concluded that the issue is not one on the validity of believer’s baptism over other teachings on baptism, but it is one concerning the doctrine of the Church and how the Church is to be gathered together and comprised. The question that must be raised is not, “Is believer’s baptism biblical?” but it is, “Should fellowship be severed because of one’s stance on baptism?” Should we as Baptists deny membership to one who is clearly in Christ and desires membership in a Baptist church but disagrees on the nature of the doctrine of baptism?

The answer that I offer is a resounding “No.” We should not deny membership to those who are clearly of Christ who disagree, at the time of their request for membership, on the Baptist stance on baptism. Why? Because, first, as Piper intimated in one of his arguments on the matter, we are hypocrites if we do. We as American Baptists will admit into our churches persons who possess all sorts unorthodox beliefs insofar as they will submit to the one doctrine of believer’s baptism. With regards to other doctrines, we presume that they, as they grow in the faith and godliness, will, under the teaching of the Word, in time grow out of their heterodoxy and be conformed to the right teachings of Scripture. Why should one’s stance on the doctrine of baptism be any different? Are we so insecure as to the biblical validity of our stance of baptism that we are not willing to allow those who disagree with us at the time of their membership to come under the teaching of the Word and through teaching and time be conformed to our view on baptism? Should we refuse their fellowship now in this passing age when we will surely be in their fellowship at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?

Secondly, denying membership based upon believer’s baptism by immersion distorts the nature of the church. The church is, in its simplest form, the gathering together of genuine followers of Christ in a particular locale. We have lost this notion in the American church, where multiple churches can occupy different corners of the same intersection. Therefore, instead of finding, for example, the church at Raleigh, we find a Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, and a Methodist church all within one hundred yards of the other. Granting that all these churches submit to their Lord Jesus Christ as their Head, it is strange and troubling that we would refuse to break bread with them now. We, rather than letting our doctrinal diversity act as iron sharpening iron, break bread only with those who align themselves exactly with us on particular doctrines so as to eliminate all discord within our particular spheres. We do not practice this for the sake of biblical unity, but we practice it for the sake of our own comfort. We do not wish to be challenged when we gather together, but we rather shop around for churches until all grounds for challenge are eliminated. This creates a stagnancy within the church and then allows for other doctrinal fallacies to creep in since the church is unfamiliar with and unequipped to address doctrine.

Thirdly, Scripture never gives warrant to break fellowship with one another on the nature of baptism. We are, however, instructed by the apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, not to associate with certain persons, and there he writes:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1Cor. 5:9-13, emphasis mine).

The apostle declares in this text that the only reason for the breaking of fellowship is regards to carnality. We should not break bread with those who call themselves our brothers when they exhibit worldliness not doctrinal differences. The reason is to keep the church pure and to promote godliness and holiness within the body. We would be much better off in our Baptist churches today if we were committed to purging the carnal from among our membership rather than turning away the paedobaptist! We, however, are much happier to break bread with licentious who are immersed than the godly who are not.

Though I do not expect that things will ever change within our Baptist churches concerning the true nature of the church as being the fellowship of the followers of Christ, I do hope that we will at least consider loving those who differ on particular secondary issues of the Faith rather than despising them and being reproached by a unbelieving world because of it. We should get used to the idea that we will break bread with those whom we refuse to break bread with now for eternity, and we would be wise to have eternity in perspective rather than this passing age. Just a thought.