And if they sometimes misunderstand our motives, and misjudge our actions, it is our consolation that our divine Master approves; and that they also will approve, when we shall hereafter meet them in his presence.”

The assumptions by those who are offended is that this is a “I was right and you were wrong mentality” and what I saw in this was not that at all. If we understand and regard those who name the name of Christ as Savior and Lord have the same motive, which is to glorify Him (however imperfectly we do it) and that the actions we take are also done to glorify Him (again imperfectly), then when we all stand before the Master we will understand that in all of our attempts to bring glory to God through Jesus Christ, he accepts us regardless of our level of understanding or “correctness.” Look at Romans 14:3-8. Better yet, look at Mark 9:38-41.
I don’t see a snarky one-upsmanship in that statement. I see a humility of one who is convinced of His relationship with God and knows that he answers to God when it is all said and done.

And what he says about “And if they sometimes misunderstand our motives, and misjudge our actions, it is our consolation that our divine Master approves; and that they also will approve, when we shall hereafter meet them in his presence.” is something *all* of us on whatever side of the denominational fence should bear in mind when dealing with one another.

Just I’ve had far too many run-ins with that type of personality — “I Am Always Right, You Are Always Wrong, and when you realize that and Agree Completely With Me, we won’t have a problem, Will You?” — to the point I’m hypersensitized to it. Or to anything that could resemble it.

How can there be any meaningful dialogue between Christian denominations as long as we cling to our own views and interpretations as the only “truly biblical” ones? — Josh

You know the ultimate end state of that attitude? Millions of One True Ways/One True Churches/God’s Only Remnants, each with only one member, constantly issuing ex cathedra anathema after ex cathedra anathema to all the others. And I’ve been through some “splinter churches” that come close.

How can there be any meaningful dialogue between Christian denominations as long as we cling to our own views and interpretations as the only “truly biblical” ones?

To me, it would have been more impactful to have stopped with the first sentence.

I agree with the Headless Unicorn Guy. I see this same sort of “you’ll-get-yours” smugness applied to unbelievers, as if being right was more important than anything else.

“The more abundantly we love them, the more carefully we strive to walk before them in strict obedience to the commands of our common Lord.” If I were going to be impressed or influenced by those who “walk in obedience”, I’d probably be a Mormon or Muslim.

As we change, does the intrinsic properties that make a rainbow “a rainbow” change or does our growing understanding change in the way we experience its God given glory?

This does not diminish nor exalt the perceptions of the child, the scientist or the artist. All of these examples are worthy but none perceives the fullness of a created rainbow in its total. As with us all, each of our perceptions are filtered through our life’s experiences and filters put a layer of separation from the Truth.

Our challenge is to maintain the innocence of the child, the understanding of the scientist and the beauty of the artist throughout our lives – all the while being open to the awesome surprise He has in store for us around every bend in the road.

I think that’s what they call life.

Don’t know, guys. That sentence rubs me as having an unsaid additional “and then they’ll realize We Were Right and They Were Wrong all along.”

I think what Dagg writes here is great and apart from adding the phrase “what I believe the scripture says” to his stements about standing firm in the Word, I would say that this is how I hope to interact with other believers myself.

Chris Lee –

As far as physical unity goes, you can have as much as conscience allows. Maybe you would never go to a mass or a charimatic worship service or whatever, but can we not serve together in areas where we do agree even if they are only huimanitarian efforts? Can we not pray together as individuals?

Why do we have to think of unity along institutional lines or think it only happens around a time of worship or conferences? Real unity requires more actual interaction with each other than either of those situations typically provides.