-
2.5 ACOP & ECP Merger
What do you think of the ACOP’s decision in 1954 to merge with the ECP, despite a few doctrinal differences (which, in large part, were the same differences that kept Small from staying with the PAOC)? How highly should unity, fellowship, and relationship be valued in comparison with a doctrinal difference? How does fellowship function where there is doctrinal difference?
-
21 Replies
-
I think the merger, despite doctrinal differences, was a good thing given the recognized need to prioritize fellowship and relationship. I do not think truth is arrived at via consensus, nor is it a meeting in the middle, nor do I believe that truth is bendable and unimportant. The Bible says we have fellowship with one another as we walk in the light as he is in the light. For me however, the Truth is a person (JESUS), and as such truth is arrived at in a reply relational way, namely in relationship with that one who is Truth, but also with his people. The church is called the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15), the place where the True one invest his Truth in His body, and thus relationship that at least agrees to the pre-eminence of Jesus should be pursued, and may actually be the best place to discover Truth Himself.
-
I believe the decision to merge ACOP & ECP lines up with scripture. The Holy Spirit descended on the believers at Pentecost while they were all of one mind in one place. I believe that we have an enemy who would like nothing more than to see God’s people divide over petty manmade differences. Jesus also said that a house divided cannot stand. Unity, fellowship, and relationship are a sign of our faith. It is important to stand firm on foundational faith issues, but on issues where scripture can be interpreted in various ways, then we should be cautious about creating descension. We, as the Church would do much better at representing Jesus by being confident enough to differ without condemning. At this point in the history of the ACOP, the leaders seem to be endeavouring to attain unity in the faith.
-
I feel as though their decision to “agree to disagree” actually promotes more unity in the whole body of Christ rather than seeking to agree on doctrinal beliefs. At the end of the day, it is the same God that we worship and the same death and resurrection that set us free. Setting aside their differences they were able to make clear what acutally mattered and the rest could just be put to the side. This encourages all to accept each other for who they are in Christ and promotes an environment of openess and learning
-
There are many instances in Paul's letters where he urges Christians to essentially get along and stop dividing. I love that these two groups were able to focus on their similarities and agree to disagree as needed to join together. I think it's a healthy, Christian approach to relationship.
Log in to reply.