Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
This points to the Way without detailing what is "good." The way I used Romans 13 implied I'd blindly respect (obey, in fact!) those I've been trying to follow for awhile now, which for others reading has already proven to cause pain and disappointment. Instead, this verse (and the preceding verses in Romans 12) makes room for God to act on the behalf of the saints. It allows the agents in the situation to both give God's free grace to one another and also continue to declare the truth about doctrine and relationships that still has not been rectified.
Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
We should regard as good what is widely regarded as good in the sight of others, as much as it is possible, so that we may live at peace with all men [1].
Hopefully this is a more appropriate devotion in the sight of my brothers (and sisters).
Fred Lybrand is availing himself to answer questions regarding the relationship and doctrine between GES and FGA. Please leave a comment or question in the comment field below.
[1] Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, pg. 690.
24 comments:
I'm thankful for brother Fred, who I know I disappointed about this time last year. I added a lot of stress at a critical time for him, and I believe he has forgiven me so that the relationship hasn't stayed there but is alive again in God's kind of love (1 Cor. 13).
I'm thankful for Jesus for providing the kind of love that doesn't often happen anywhere in the world but does happen within His Church.
For those interested in this topic a few comments seem to be progressing under the previous thread, titled "FGA National Conference 2010"
Hi Michele,
I got lost and just now found where you set this up...of course I have forgiven you (did I need to?)...and, again, would be glad to answer anything I can to the best of my ability. It is nice to see sparks of love in a world made for the cynical and disillusioned...:-)
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
Hi Fred,
I don't remember if I left a link and an explanation like I ought to have; well either way, I'm glad you found the newer post. I was just fine sitting on it, long pauses are often very healing.
Hopefully Don will check back to see your response.
Antonio also left a comment, I didn't know if you wanted to reply. It was here and this is what he said...
Hi Michele, and Hi everyone.
Jim was spot on when he wrote this:
-----
Finally, I guess I'm having trouble reconciling how so many avowed separationists were admitted to the FGA council while Dr. Chay is also appealing for more inclusiveness in FGA. That would only seem to me to aggravate the existing divide.
-----
I hope for the FGA's sake that this won't be a case of "give them enough rope". I believe in the mission of the FGA, were it not for the fact that they are intentionally on unintentionally stigmatizing and separating out a large segment of the Free Grace world with their very public pronouncements.
Hey Don, I got the GES journal and read with great enthusiasm both your article and Bob's. Great stuff!!!
your free grace brother,
Antonio
Thannks, Michele
Don and I have swapped emails, which I certainly appreciated.
Coalitions and Cooperatives are always a challenge. I know we have had FGA members in the past who didn't belong to any church at all. There is actually diversity (variety) on the FGA Executive Council (it is not a Board according to the FGA documents), and Dr. Bing and I serve in an ex officio capacity as well. I'm not sure separating from separatists (so called) serves us much better either.
I honestly believe that the statement the Council made regarding the gospel was important and valuable. In particular, we were receiving a lot of feedback that showed people were confused about the relationship between GES and the FGA. It seemed best to the Council (I wasn't serving at that time) to specifically and formally make it clear.
GES and the FGA are simply unrelated (except by overlapping members...I assume...and by our connection to the Brethren Movement, Dallas Theological Seminary, and the loosely to the Keswick orientation in sanctification) The doctrine and purpose of the FGA are its own possessions and responsibilities under the Lord.
As organizations go, I'm sure it will shift in its form over time.
I'm trusting that will mean growth and contribution to all things truly Free Grace.
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
Hi Fred,
I like your avatar. :D I would like to reply to your comment.
I honestly believe that the statement the Council made regarding the gospel was important and valuable. In particular, we were receiving a lot of feedback that showed people were confused about the relationship between GES and the FGA.
Yes. There have been differing reports on who was where and why. I might be able to understand what need you met. Giving an answer was helpful, even if not all the confusion is cleared up by that answer. It gives people something to chew on.... Rest is good.
What about the people composed by the two organizations? Is there opportunity for them to become like family? Are the people in FGA open to sup with the GES part of the Body as much as others?
I am certain that there is ground to cover and unanticipated healing to experience over those confusing days. I think it's great you're making yourself available to do a small part. If Hodges were still living, he would have been essential as well. I remember in 2008 you said that people had been writing to him, asking him, insisting that he'd reply because this was an important issue, and from what I understand he wasn't so convinced he needed to.
If my knowledge is unfair, biased or imperfect, I apologize. Even with imperfect information, there is a lot of space for just about anyone and everyone to say kindnesses to one another.
I might be borrowing from experience as a woman. When a man says, "I'm fine" he is right. However he could be better.
Thanks so much,
Michele
Hi Michele,
Thanks for your note. There are three parts (in bold I hope) that I'd like to focus on...so, they'll come in three pieces.
What about the people composed by the two organizations? Is there opportunity for them to become like family? Are the people in FGA open to sup with the GES part of the Body as much as others?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but the idea of 'supping' sounds like the issues in 1 Corinthians 5 concerning a dis-fellowshipped believer. Neither the FGA nor GES have given any directives about not having fellowship or relationship with other believers (to my knowledge). I can't imagine how not-a-church organization like these would ever create requirements regarding fellowship. Supping is entirely a personal issue between individuals. Would the organizations 'work together' on a project? That would be subject to the nature of the event. It is difficult, however, to see a basis for 'co-labor' given GES's view of the gospel. Of course, the FGA wouldn't 'co-labor' with many other organizations based on doctrine and goals. Frankly, there really is no reason to ever work with other organizations, since our goals to favor joint projects. FGA is simply there to connect and encourage it's members as a means of growing the Free Grace Movement. Three seminaries belong to the FGA, therefore we help promote them. Dallas Seminary does not belong to the FGA, so there is no formal 'helping' of DTS...it wouldn't make sense.
...please continue on to the next post...
...continued...
I am certain that there is ground to cover and unanticipated healing to experience over those confusing days.
More to your point is this question of healing (thank you for mentioning it). Personally, I don't know what needs healing because I am not aware of a rift (especially following a relationship) regarding the two groups. FGA never belonged to GES and GES has not chosen to join the FGA. If GES would join the FGA by affirming our Covenant, then there would be no rift (so called). Of course, you know organizations and individuals can join the FGA.
Frankly, I don't see any of this as a big deal. There are two organizations...why should these two 'uniquely' have relationship? There are 1,000s x 100s of organization out there, why exactly would there be an idea that these two should be joined, healed, etc.?
My first guess is that some people must mistakenly think that the FGA split off from GES, which is exactly and pointedly untrue. At the time of the formation of the FGA, Dr. Bing, Dr. Radmacher, Dr. Johnson, Phil Congdon, and I were all members of GES and continued to speak at events for some time after founding the FGA. I personally decided to disassociate with GES after the GES doctrinal statement was radically revised in August of 2005. I (and my church) could no longer subscribe to the changes to the doctrine of GES. That isn't a rift...it's just that GES was no longer a match for us. Any issues regarding the cross of Christ (GES Gospel Controversy; see http://fredlybrand.blogspot.com/2009/04/ges-gospel-lybrand-open-letter.html) actually came up much later. Of course, there are individuals who are not currently 'fellowshipping', but that is an individual-to-individual issue. I know there are people who think GES is evil...and I know of some who think the FGA is evil. Honestly, there is nothing to be done about such things. Individuals are free to believe, support, resist, etc., in our country (at least for a while longer!) I just want to affirm their freedom to choose.
Also, you mention "confusing days" in your note. I'm not sure what the confusion you are referring to is exactly. I assume it would be the confusion of seeing people who formerly worked together going on different paths because of doctrinal disagreements. Sadly, that is the history of Christianity. Moreover, the Bible predicts apostasy to be an expected part of the future for Christianity. I'm not saying that anyone involved in these matters are apostates, but I am saying that the confusion (and discussion) should be over the Holy Scriptures rather than over persons and personalities.
...please continue to the final post...
...continued...
Sorry for the deletions, Blogger told me that had not posted...
If Hodges were still living, he would have been essential as well. I remember in 2008 you said that people had been writing to him, asking him, insisting that he'd reply because this was an important issue, and from what I understand he wasn't so convinced he needed to.
While that is true about Hodges and people insisting he reply, it was not my experience with him. In our correspondence, Zane told me that there was no reply necessary. He said that what he had written was clear and stood on its own merits. This is why Don's paper isn't persuasive to me personally (though I really appreciate his efforts). It is not Zane Hodges himself who is a problem (he is gone). It is actually some of his writings that are the problem. Trying to piece together what 'he really thought' is not actually helpful compared to what he said. Either Zane meant what he said or he did not. Zane told me he meant what he said, while Don seems to be focused on saying Zane did not mean what he said. Zane was very clear that he believed a person could be saved apart from specific knowledge of the Person and / or Work of Christ. I just disagree with that view...but I am quite sure I have not misunderstood him. As you mention, Zane Hodges saw no need to reply because there was nothing to reply to...he had said his piece.
Why can't we just disagree? I disagree with John Piper (see www.backtofaith.com), and yet I feel no ill will toward him. I genuinely believe that Zane got misguided in his last years. I'm sad for it and God will sort it all out. People can also disagree with me about my own understanding of things. If they misunderstand me, then I surely want that cleared up; but, if they understand-but-disagree, there is nothing more to do.
Sorry for the length.
Hope this helps,
Fred Lybrand
Hi Fred,
Sorry for not replying sooner. Wednesday is what I call the "day of sin" because it's the day I do the most and by the end I can't wait to finish noting all the not pleasing things I've done. :)
I sure appreciated and hopefully am grasping everything you shared. It was good.
You said,
While that is true about Hodges and people insisting he reply, it was not my experience with him. In our correspondence, Zane told me that there was no reply necessary. He said that what he had written was clear and stood on its own merits.
This is exactly what you said two years ago and I have no reason yet to doubt. Well. How can someone ask you to be more open doctrinally concerning the gospel when Hodges was not open to you?
That's not to say that Hodges did not also have this same thing happen to him by some person as he was seeking things out, before he began doing likewise of which you "experienced."
I suppose it doesn't matter who started it. Just as long as we can feel leaders who are substantially more open. That's what I would like very much. I think you are. And you could say that I'm nosy, and I might be. On the other hand people feel it. I'm standing on God's Word; He tells me.
1 cor 12:26 "And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it"
Anyone who says they don't feel it when someone else is shut out is deadened. And,
Eph 5:29 "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it"
We're built with an instinct for self-preservation. If the wrist has a tight band on it cutting the circulation off to the hand, the other hand tears the tight band off. What person does not care for his own flesh? No one forgets to.
Sometimes, it's not even a blatantly obvious kind of thing. God communicates in mysterious ways and tells the Body exactly the place and the thing that is going on, without being so explicit. Have you noticed this? So there are a few people showing up, available but totally incapable of doing anything, but Christ.
more continued.....
Hi Fred,
This part is immensely helpful....
Either Zane meant what he said or he did not. Zane told me he meant what he said, while Don seems to be focused on saying Zane did not mean what he said. Zane was very clear that he believed a person could be saved apart from specific knowledge of the Person and / or Work of Christ. I just disagree with that view...but I am quite sure I have not misunderstood him.
I hope I'm hearing you, better than times past. Yes I sure appreciate Don and his recent work. I think it is very helpful that you have read it and have thought how to reply. There is a lot of doctrinally useful information Don has collected by distilling Hodges' writings and sessions. However if you are fully convinced when Hodges said essentially he meant what he wrote and intended (?) that no one change it by subtraction or addition, implying therefore it was complete, then I want to reason on that alongside you. I guess that leaves everyone with their own interpretation of Hodges and either embracing or rejecting Hodges', instead of keeping the real matter at hand; the scriptures. Christianity has never just written doctrinal discourses and then called it good. We will have writers till He comes. We will have dialogue till He comes. You probably see why I say it, I would guess? That's why it was/is a substantial mistake to continue that legacy and declare the matter is closed. Then it becomes about someone's teaching, and that is what has happened for many fg leaders, more than just Hodges. What do you think of my perspective?
There is a separation, I get that. Even if I don't know with what or who caused it. It is what it is, as you say.... You can't commune concerning the gospel. You can't fellowship over what isn't true. Got it.... Good, helpful, thanks!
more continued....
Hi Fred,
Thanks for letting me talk BTW. You said,
Personally, I don't know what needs healing because I am not aware of a rift (especially following a relationship) regarding the two groups.
Okay. It might be so close that it's like trying to see one's nose. Remember last year that time which was lovingly/painfully referred to as the circus? That was tough. Setting aside for a moment how it felt regarding those days and their issues, I can look at the bigger picture and what it's saying. It says that there's all kinds of opinions and thoughts out there. Attempting to capture the real categories of fg people and how they see things, I might say,
1. there are those fg people believe that GES is right, and with a variety of attitudes, including the most extreme - doubting an opposer's salvation in some cases.
2. there are those who are convinced GES is right but are completely open to being shown otherwise (such as... wasn't that your own story or who's, before 2005 or so, when "we thought they were all saying the same thing, and then someone showed me, no, they are indeed different"), and their minds can easily be convinced.
2. there are those who think GES is mostly right but does not believe that distinction is necessary at all
3. there are those who think the FGA (or even JP's gospel) are completely right but who think that GES people could be convinced given the chance
4. there are those who are unconvinced about the doctrine of either and are worried about disagreement in any measure and would rather not be fg at all because of it.
I know, I'm digging up ugly. I don't know how conviction gets any more diverse and intriguing. These are the people who are cut off to manage their own respective corners. I have faith that you believe you can help. That's why you're here when I posted - sincerely I am thankful.
When you say, "I don't see the rift" that is genuine, and I appreciate it. I assume you are convinced about the FGA's covenant that the lost must believe the specific knowledge of the Person and Work of Christ. That's why you feel like you're standing in the center of the solar system, and when people are done orbiting in their own speed, they'll end up agreeing with you in the truth. I'm trying to be realistic about this, but let me know how I'm doing?
Not everybody believes the answer is that answer. Not always because they're naughty, either. There's the rift. They're merely speaking out of their own conviction, genuine, just the same.
If someone believes in any of those categories above, and were expecting various things from an interchange with FGA people, do you think they could be disappointed?
I'd be thankful to share my conviction. May I? I am convinced that there is a third doctrine of the fg gospel, one that does not minimize like GES (might!) or FGA would maximize (possibly!). It sheds the issues of both, and takes the gospel to a more powerful, Christ-centered place. That's what I believe. What's more, I also am convinced that when it is written, both parts of fg will be welcome to come under one freedom-giving head, and find fellowship in Truth, because this gospel will be based on the truth of God's Word. I am operating out of my conviction, when I say I look for healing, because that is consistent with the future I see for fg, based on this encompassing and problem-shedding doctrine of the gospel. And isn't that consistent with the character of God? Of course it is. God has a solution. Doctrinally, and relationally. I'm convinced about it. I know that's different, but the cool thing is I am coming to understand you better with time and that means a lot. There's so much I don't know it'll take me at least my lifetime.
There are a good number of people I would guess straddling the gap, who are sort of aware of the doctrine of this third option.
I am trying to stay in tune with what I've heard and seen. If I haven't got it right, please correct me on these things. I am very open to understanding more of your gospel and orientation. It's a standing invitation. :D
You said,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but the idea of 'supping' sounds like the issues in 1 Corinthians 5 concerning a dis-fellowshipped believer.
I was thinking of Revelation 3:20 KJV
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
The challenge given by the Spirit to the Laodicean church came "Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’." There is an equivalence between members of the church asking to come in and fellowship (if not over the gospel, then over everything else "in the truth"), and Jesus standing at the door and knocking, asking to come in for intimate fellowship. How are they equivalent? Because Paul warns the church in 1 Cor 12:21 to think of themselves as one body - Christ's. They might have said to one another, "I have no need of you."
To never say such a thing as "I don't need you," is where that work of healing takes place....
Thanks,
Michele
Thanks for your thoughts Michele...I'm going to just hit a few highlights (to me).
You said:
However if you are fully convinced when Hodges said essentially he meant what he wrote and intended (?) that no one change it by subtraction or addition, implying therefore it was complete, then I want to reason on that alongside you. I guess that leaves everyone with their own interpretation of Hodges and either embracing or rejecting Hodges', instead of keeping the real matter at hand; the scriptures. Christianity has never just written doctrinal discourses and then called it good. We will have writers till He comes. We will have dialogue till He comes. You probably see why I say it, I would guess? That's why it was/is a substantial mistake to continue that legacy and declare the matter is closed. Then it becomes about someone's teaching, and that is what has happened for many fg leaders, more than just Hodges. What do you think of my perspective?
Excellent. Seriously. Thank you.
There is a common mistake in theobabblical circles which assumes a rather unbroken chain of influence from one teacher to the next. It is really silly and indefensible. That all of us are influenced by others who preceded us is one thing, but to say we believe something BECAUSE of that influence is a misunderstanding of how we come to know or believe a matter.
I remember saying to one of my friends and mentors, "I can't help it if I agree with Augustine because he agrees with the Bible." And, I can't.
At some point and in some way (not regarding our from-hell-to-heaven salvation) we will all stand or fall for our own lives (see Ezekiel 18). What a frightening and wonderful thing!
Fred
Now, this is helpful. You said,
I am convinced that there is a third doctrine of the fg gospel, one that does not minimize like GES (might!) or FGA would maximize (possibly!). It sheds the issues of both, and takes the gospel to a more powerful, Christ-centered place. That's what I believe. What's more, I also am convinced that when it is written, both parts of fg will be welcome to come under one freedom-giving head, and find fellowship in Truth, because this gospel will be based on the truth of God's Word. I am operating out of my conviction, when I say I look for healing, because that is consistent with the future I see for fg, based on this encompassing and problem-shedding doctrine of the gospel.
The word I would choose for what you are saying is UNITY. We could be united. Perhaps this is what people mean by 'healing' in other contexts as well. At any rate, you are on a path I can appreciate...and, one for which I long myself. In many ways I see this hope as reaching far beyond what we might call "free grace circles," to encompass the whole of Christianity.
I might say that God is bigger than our theories about His gospel...and, of course, I'd be right. The truth, however, is that I am still caught in a world that needs an answer to the questions,
What must I do to be saved?
What must I believe to be saved?
Who must I believe to be saved?
Though it would be nice to reduce it to the third question and declare, "JESUS," I'm afraid there is more to the story. In seeking the truth, the Word must match my thoughts and hopes about what is real...I can't twist, adjust, or fudge (except to my own demise).
This is why I ask, "Can one get saved by believing less than the gospel?" I think the answer is, "NO," which also explains why the 'minimal/maximum' debate is errant. There is no minimum or maximum, there is only the gospel. Oddly enough, this is why our Calvinist friends won't have this debate among themselves...the saved will make it because of their election. [I'm seeking help on this at http://fredlybrand.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/up-for-a-little-theology-i-need-your-help-on-calvinism/ ]
This is our difficult state...and deciding what one must believe to be saved will dictate the way we say it (eventually)...so, sadly, it still matter. 1 Cor 1:18ff is what utterly won me...to date, no one has answered (or tried to answer) the unavoidable connection of 'the message of the cross' to saving faith.
Maybe we will have unity, but I am skeptical (until the Lord returns). If we could seek the truth together and keep at it until we can make sense of it together (not quiting or slaying the motives of another), then there would be hope. Yet, more skeptically, I see people gathering teachers and teachers gathering people...all to their views.
May God have mercy on us all,
Fred
Hi Fred,
Thanks for enduring another long pause. It did give me time to hear where you are coming from...
You said,
This is our difficult state...and deciding what one must believe to be saved will dictate the way we say it (eventually)...so, sadly, it still matter. 1 Cor 1:18ff is what utterly won me...to date, no one has answered (or tried to answer) the unavoidable connection of 'the message of the cross' to saving faith.
Yes it does matter; there is a lot of confusion out there and if fg will impact Christianity it can't just tell them "what's wrong," it needs to be able to explain "what's right." I've adapted the 3 main questions from your parenting course to this situation :)
I bet you're thinking about this... when a theory (doctrinal) is right, it helps explain many passages, but when it is incomplete, it cannot explain the test of all passages??
So if someone has found an unfitting verse that utterly convinces them, seems to me they should keep on talking about it for the benefit of everyone else. I'm glad you have not moved from 1 Cor 1:18 because our understanding is not yet complete. I too am meditating on a passage that "does not yet fit," anywhere.
A lot of people see disagreement as a weakness - but I see it as a great asset if we'll receive problem passages (and one another).
You said,
Maybe we will have unity, but I am skeptical (until the Lord returns). If we could seek the truth together and keep at it until we can make sense of it together (not quiting or slaying the motives of another), then there would be hope. Yet, more skeptically, I see people gathering teachers and teachers gathering people...all to their views.
Believing has to come from the Word, not a tradition of teachers. This is what you said above. I totally agree. Anyone who says "I am complete" says so for one of two reasons, I imagine. It's possible they do not have a proportional fear of God. Else, they have wrongly discerned their theological opponents criticism as "unhealthy" when in fact it was a very healthy and necessary deconstructing process.
I realize we will never see unity, we will never perfectly agree. I am not the least bit uncomfortable with someone quoting Hodges, all the time every time. What concerns me greatly however is how those in disagreement view their conflict. We are all different. But we all inescapably need each other. Members of Christ are all equally necessary, just as 1 Cor 1:18 is needed equally alongside John 6:47.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 tim 3:16
Michelle,
I like what you've said here. I will say that our challenge comes with the nature of theology...we (all) are somewhat compelled to answer all the questions and cross all the 't's. Sadly, this tempts us all to conjecture and speculation; which, in turn, sadly becomes the foundation of application (rather than solid truth). I say this of us all and appeal to embrace the honest mysteries we find in the Word of God.
Unity does arrive at an admission of our ignorance in some matter...never (ever) needing to compromise on the solid truth of God.
God bless,
Fred
Thank you for this part,
I say this of us all and appeal to embrace the honest mysteries we find in the Word of God.
Unity does arrive at an admission of our ignorance in some matter...never (ever) needing to compromise on the solid truth of God.
Amen to that! Unity was never about violating our conscience. It is a God-given gift to the church.
God bless you as well!
Post a Comment