Preliminaries

From the fall of Adam and Eve to the rise of western civilization man has sought to repair his own sin rent soul with everything from humanistic invention to counterfeit religion, all in the name of truth. Yet these adhesives have never held a gap so wide and foreboding. The only inevitable solution which no man or woman has honestly been able to deny is the one which so few dare to face; that is, humility and pain – the surgical needle and thread God commands every soul to endure. A child can’t bear the sight of a doctor’s needle as he or she begins to mend a severe laceration. Many scream in absolute horror. Similarly, we’re petrified at the thought of trusting our wound to the greatest Physician in the universe. To use contemporary idiom, "We’re just a bunch of big babies!" Some are so proud and puckered that they deny or ignore their spiritual infirmity while others confess they have it yet try to alleviate it themselves.

All of this depicts what diabolical nature lies at the core of man’s inner being. And it’s the very thought of humility and pain which so intimidates his monopoly on spiritual independence. Pride and pleasure on the other hand are the compromises which permit such independence and are thus the perfect alternative to the road less traveled. What I’m driving at is that amidst all the hermeneutical and exegetical sophistication – the intricate theological "schematics" so many fabricate from God’s Word in order to prove their point – the two domineering factors in peoples lives are primarily the character traits of humility and pride. And it’s these, not necessarily our doctrinal opinions, which often affect our theological reasoning, steering our hearts and minds in the direction THEY would have us go without us consciously realizing it. To the degree people possess these traits will usually be the degree they’re willing to either persist in or repent of their label worship. For when pride is harnessed by a controlling label it turns many into nothing more than mere puppets on a string – and you needn’t guess who the puppeteer is.

Pain and pleasure are cousin to humility and pride in that they are applicable according to their influence: sacrificial servitude for the sake of Christ and His creation or carnal indulgence for the sake of self which harms his creation. A good example of this would be those who trust in either unconditional or conditional eternal security to the point that one doctrine, stretched out of bounds, gives pleasure an excuse to reign unchecked while the other stifles it legalistically to the point that the transgressor boasts in his or her moral accomplishments. One’s guilty of carnal pleasure; the other, egotistical pleasure. In regard to pain we need no example, for it’s all too clear what service of sacrifice, as well as chastisement, awaits the believer here.

Now obviously these are simple concepts, yet they are woven throughout the entire matrix of life itself. And I have good reason for laying such elemental foundations as we will see throughout the course of this book.

Have you ever wondered why so many competent people believe so many different things within Christendom; even those of genius capacity; and how they can be divided over a book which repeatedly intructs us to corporately be of one heart and mind (1 Co 1:10)? Given this means more than doctrinal congruency between us all, I believe there still remain some answers other than the shallow excuses (usually coined as ‘reasons’) so prevalent in our society today. One such example is those who say that a multiplicity of beliefs or denominations is like that of differing nationalities or musical preferences – you have one for each individual (‘different strokes for different folks’). Another similar to it and even more deceptive is: "We all see God through different eyes just as different witnesses of an automobile collision each explains his or her own view of the accident."

These common misconceptions which seem so legit receive more than their due attention. What’s so deceiving is that they’re not necessarily taken completely out of context, rather they divert one’s attention away from the main context at hand. Disregarding allegory, symbolisms and the like, too many people believe too many interpretations regarding too many portions of the Bible when its authors usually intended only one simple yet profound meaning. We may indeed affix "reasons" to our doctrinal preferences, but it’s usually within the context of a traditional conformity of which we have adapted into our own way of thinking. The details of one’s nationality, music, or car accident holds no comparative value whatsoever when dealing with something as complex and enigmatic as ancient religion. What we’ve passively leaned on for so long is actually a crutch which human nature, along with the uncognitive consent of ego, has taken advantage of in order to dodge love and humility, thus silencing the convicting reproofs of our own conscience.

Yes, people are indeed different, but the Bible isn’t and it’s the doctrinal contents of this book with which we, outside the perimeters of introverted and isolated affiliational labels, should all agree upon. Granted, this may seem somewhat illusionary and nothing more than a wistful dream – and on a large scale it undoubtedly is. But what I’m petitioning is not the disposal of these labels per se, but the attitudes couched behind them, stirred and sustained by an addiction to a doctrinal recipe which we have fed upon, many ever since childhood, simply because it was dished out to us. My aim is not to discourage the "individuality" or the freedom of belief we each have a right to, but only the individuality and the beliefs we think are of our own opinion when in reality are someone else’s we’ve merely adopted; a persuasion which we’ve been persuaded by if you will. Just because someone grows up under or is saved under a particular label warrants absolutely no justification concerning that label’s doctrinal accuracy; this includes teachers as well as those taught. When we stop defending the notion that our church’s recipe is the tastiest in town and begin to equally accept and love one another regardless of our favorite pet doctrines, then that’s when we’ll further clear the portals of time for Christ's Parousia to be hastened. And following His return will we recline at the Master Chef’s table marveling at His recipe of perfect revelation, dumbfounded at the inconsistency of the former ones we so ignorantly boasted in during our pilgrimage here on earth (Lk 14:15, 22:27-30; 1 Co 13:12).

Let’s pretend for a moment that you were reared in a family devoted to a heathen religion. Tell me, how quickly would you be willing to renounce your religious "heritage". A heritage which had cut profound theological ruts into your mind and spirit ever since you were a kid. Could you deny such a history after encountering someone "outside of" your sect, who, upon smiling, proceeded to spew his sect’s contaminated beliefs all over your spotless white gown of philosophical ingenuity? If you’re like most people you probably wouldn’t even consider converting over to a label opposite that of your own. Although you’ve never walked in the other man’s shoes, you’re still quite content to believe yours are more durable, right? I’m not referring, of course, to labels outside of mainstream Christianity (albeit they are applicable as well). I’m simply trying to convey an overall principle – that when something seems so irrefutably correct does it mean that it is just because it’s what a person was brought up to believe in or participated in long enough to devise some type of theological stance for him or herself?! Let’s view this from another angle. What do you think would be the overall tally of a survey taken amongst a large number of professing Christians from various denominations who if asked to give their opinion regarding several doctrines would answer according to their affiliational up-bringing? Logic and common sense alone teach us that, apart from the extraordinary cases, most people who are raised, saved under, or intimately acquainted with any church affiliation will usually embrace the overall teachings of that affiliation. But does that validate those teachings? Of course not! Both good and bad doctrine can be found in all denominations, some more some less, yet the "members" of such are usually prone to see only the good and rarely the bad. It’s human nature. Man is so dumb because he thinks he’s so smart. The perfectionistic intellectualist for example is often addicted to an understanding of "deeper truths" which he or she uncognatively clings to as a type of security blanket to keep humility and true love towards an opponent from entering in. The humble blindly trust God because they don't need to "see". Their hearts have been laid bear before Him. The proud on the other hand, in all their sceptical doubting, have to have a logical reason for everything, to replace that which only simple childlike faith can produce. No doubt posessing a keen intellect is a gift from God and something which should be honed to human perfection, but there IS a limitation. We should be zealous about doctrine without becoming doctrinal "zealots". Therefore, it is not until we shrink to the very bottom of ourselves, where a quivering insecure ego hides, that we become smart enough to see how dumb we really are. For it was only until I became small that I began to see how large of a space there was in my mind that yet needed filling (Ja 4:6, 10; see also ch. 7). Until we reach the point of considering ourselves to know but little then we will never truly know as we ought. This first applies individually then corporately as truth or error reigns to the degree we’ve gloried in either pride or humility, because pride impairs spiritual vision, humility repairs it.

Some people are only influenced by labels whereas others are controlled by them, and sometimes to the magnitude that they don’t even realize it. All they realize is that they are right and the others are wrong. This reminds me of what "The Fonz" said in the late 70’s sit-com smash "Happy Days" when he was confronted with the stark realization that someone of his caliber could actually be wrong. In one episode he apologized to a friend by saying: "I’m sorry, I was wrooo… (laughter) I was wrooo… (laughter) …I was wrong." After several attempts humility finally prevailed. Not only are these words rarely uttered from the lips of those who argue over doctrine, but how seldom do we hear other kindred phrases such as: "I don’t know", "I’m not quite sure", or "You know, you just might be right". These are indeed theological pride prickers of which an ego hates to identify. We need more Fonzies' in the Church today, don't you agree? These are those who have the guts enough to confess that they may be wrooo…ng or that they might not know as much as they thought they did. This especially applies to those who haven't "studied to show themselves approved". As I mentioned earlier in chapter one, this doesn't mean we have to walk around in a haze with no doctrinal stability - thinking we have to agree with everyone around us so that unity will be preserved (Ro 14:5, 22; see further on pp.24-26). Believing in something is a powerful thing. So powerful that you can't see anything else except what you and "your kind" believe in, even if it's wrong. Man is bad about clinging too tightly to things he calls his own simply because he's the one who thought of it, discovered it, believed in it, or aquired it. His stamp of approval becomes the seal of authority (Jn 9:41). Be careful of your own heart! Such stealthy deception is a misunderstanding which can be dangerous because to you IT IS understanding. Until we are freed by a humility of heart and sobriety of mind will we cease from being know-it-alls who appear to be so theologically "super-spiritual" - no doubt a halo passed down from Adam and Eve (Ge 3:5-7; 1 Cor 8:2).

How much easier it is to tolerate an opinion opposite from your own if it's one which has been fashioned outside the ranks of aristocratic denominations. Experience has taught me that it's much more difficult and irksome to debate with people who relay a message they've been programmed by than with those who lay one they've verified for themselves to be true, even if in all actuality they're still wrong. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be just another "monkey see monkey do" kind of guy or some caged "Polly the parrot" who repeats nearly anything he hears. Teachers needed in the Church today are not those who play a doctrinal "relay" race hoping to pass their team's baton to the next contender in line. In fact, many times the words "teach" and "teacher" in the New Testament didn't necessarily carry the same force in the first century as we assume they carry in our contemporary western society. We forget that the message of a crucified Messiah and the incorporation of Gentile "dogs" into the Abrahamic covenant was a mystery, a stumbling block, and a novel teaching to Israel as well as all people of that era and therefore needed immediate attention and explanation - especially in the light of forthcoming persecution and stotic invasion (Eph 3:5; Col 1:26, 27). The "side issues" were not the issue. Christ was! Futhermore, Israel was entrenched in roughly 4,000 years of religious heritage making it extremely difficult to teach the prestigious nation anything of greater consequence - a rut we're warned in Ro 11:18-21,25 not to fall into. The application ought to be clear: although we may relish and even profit from some of the labelistic rudiments of the past, we should always be willing to resist the urge of becoming stagnant and set in our ways lest hidden nuggets of truth evade us (Mt 13:44, 52). The sad thing about it is that most label-bound teachers insist on setting us in their ways until we eventually become set in our own. So remember, the next time you're beseech'n for a teach'n make sure you're not so captivated by a speaker's polished rhetoric that you swallow his or her arguments hook, line, and sinker (Ro 16:18). Think for yourself!

Anyone can "prove" nearly anything to be true when it comes to Bible interpretation due to the nature of the subject - religion. For example, we can hardly compare the Bible to a mathematics or science textbook whereby the principles and data within are all documented, factually proven, and fully agreed upon by the experts thereof. Nevertheless, how many believers do just that?! Would two computer programmers both experienced and thoroughly trained concerning the "mechanics" of hi-tech computers argue over the mathematical and electronical laws of how a computer works? Would they argue over which chips, capacitors, and wires went where to make it operate? Of course not! They know for certain what needs to be done in order to make the thing work. Now then, take a bible and two "labelized" theologians who, let's say are smarter than the computer experts - even possessing genius intellect - and yoke them together to start a church; or for that matter, a bunch of new converts who haven't even been labelized yet. Instruct them to study the Bible together until they come to an agreement on what exactly it teaches regarding the more complicated issues. Honestly, how long do you think they would sustain unity before parting ways doctrinally and thus forming their own assembly?! The computer dudes hold to no segregational labels, only identical titles, have studied books which are basically finite in nature, and understand their occupation to hold the same identical principles and procedures. Each one respects the other in their field of work because it's the same. But when it comes to religion - AUGHHH - bar the windows and lock the doors! Things get so complicated. People get so touchy. Why? Sometimes it's as if you have to walk on egg shells until the dreaded subject has played itself out.

We simply must understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by different people in different settings with different cultures through different languages and inspired by One who regulated how much and what kind of info was to be imparted and that's barely scratching the surface. Yet still, how many proceed to teach their doctrines as if those doctrines are positively, undisputedly, 100% correct; synthesizing them from a Book which entails such a long and intricate labyrinth of historical background - a Book which is not finite. There are lost idioms, lost figures of speech, lost or unclear interpretations of certain catch-words and phrases, lost symbolisms, lost information, lost this, lost that. There's also an enormous sea of ancient artifacts, inscriptions, targums, and textual codices, along with all the extra-biblical literature such as the Septuigent, Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha, which one must wrestle with. Linguistical, paleographical, archeological, and historical works such as Tacitus, Philo, and Josephus play their part as well in the colossal search for such "pin pointed" truth. I could go on and on listing the in and outs pertaining to the theological complexities of extracting doctrines "proven" to be true. And that's not even mentioning the fact that we as inferior finite beings, in our self-flattering attempts to simplify such complexity, can only arrive at a limited amount of truth (1 Cor 8:2, 13:9-12; Ro 12:3; 1 Cor 13:12)". Man is dumb, he just hasn't realized it yet. When he does, God will replace "wit" with true wisdom (Isa 55:9).

Whether we label ourselves conservative or liberal at this point is irrelevant since I'm refering to an exhaustive doctrinal "precision" of which is mortally unattainable in this lifetime and not to the errancy or inerrancy of Scripture itself. Ironically enough, even the proponents of these positions both claim to be "precise" in their reasonings.

Only God above knows indefinitely which is true and which is false. We can't "prove", in the utmost sense of that word, anything. And He'll even use that which is incomplete as a jettison to our completion once we've resisted the temptation of claiming doctrinal superiority over one another. Faith works by love, not by a perfectly proven methodological system of teaching. We all need to know where we stand doctrinally. But we also need to know that the Bible isn't a technically detailed, blueprinted, planned out "system" of thought which came floating down from Heaven one day with a note attached saying "Here you go guys, the analytical instruction manual you'll need in order to fully understand all the doctrinal hum-dingers you've always argued about." I wish it were that easy, but it's not. There's simply too much involved for people to claim that they understand, that their church is the best, and that they can "prove" their arguments to be without flaw. Only that which proceeds from God's mouth is consistantly pure truth, not ours. Be assured that not every doctrinal word which leaves your tongue is on target; if it were we might as well "label" ourselves GOD! ...hmmm no wonder so many are HIGH minded.

Now we're all familiar with the expression "two heads are better than one" and we use it repeatedly in our everyday speech. Yet it's odd that we never use the axiom in association with theological discussion or research, let alone our disputes. All have knowledge (1 Cor 8:1) but who has genuine love and humility? We all have our doctrines, but which ones have us?! How many times have you heard of churches giving their brethren the benevolent boot of dis-fellowship just because of their differing opinions. Their idea of unity is "one head's better than two" - yours and anyone else's who disagrees with them. I say this because there are entirely too many churches giving their "members" the certificate of divorce, especially when it's over controversial issues such as speaking in tongues, baptisms, or certain church traditions, to name a few. You just don't go around kicking God's people out of His church, unless of course it's on the biblical grounds of excommunication. One may reply "Well, it's 'biblical' to excommunicate those who hold to false doctrines and my Bible teaches that (fill in the blank) is false doctrine." Well first of all, the Bible says nothing about expelling people who's theological opinions differ from that of the church. 1 Jn 2:19 records that the ungodly "went out from" the midst of the godly showing they were not of God (read also 2 Pe 2:13; Jude 1:12). Secondly, God's Word is not my Bible but our Bible. It may therefore be interpreted differently - not necessarily erroneously, although erroneous interpretations do abound in the Church. What may be erroneous to one person or group may be perfectly just and "explainable" to another. Remember there are always three sides to a story - your's, their's, and the truth. Some doctrines are of a paradoxical nature which some confuse to be contradictional and thus breed contension in Christ's Body. In the eyes of truth not ALL doctrines are "right" or "wrong", though in the eyes of man they may seem that way. It's ok that we see dimly regarding some doctrinal issues. The point is that until we reach full maturity we should be content to be amiss without missing the truth altogether (1 Cor 13:12; Heb 5:14). And if a fellow believer is in error, by the "estimates" of those who differ, then this is NOT legitimate grounds for giving your brother the boot, especially if he or she has sown strong relational roots in the church and wants to remain. Excommunication has to do with gross immorality of which a "so-called brother" (1 Cor 5:11) refuses to repent, not individual preferences concerning controversial doctrine. Some dear saints have really been hurt and have even backslid due to those bound by labellistic tradition who, ironically, are themselves engrossed in "false doctrine" regarding their interpretation of excommunication. Any child of God who isn't accepted on that basis alone (1 Jn 5:1) can not logically be considered your brother or sister in Christ. Ro 14:5, 22 teaches we're to know what we believe in, but contextually the reason is not so that we may separate ourselves from each other. An attitude of love, as well as honoring another's conscience, is the underlying theme (read 1 Cor 10:28, 29, then cf. Ro 14:16 w/ 1 Cor 8:9-13). The Bible teaches that God still accepts, and so should we, any child of His who may "differ" from us. I'll always welcome and rejoice with those who have the Truth even though they may be lacking truth in general. A split in the intellect I can understand, but when the head stands in the way of the heart then something's got to go and it shouldn't be one of God's beloved. Are two heads better than one? Hmmm... maybe they would be if we would put our priorities in order by examining at our hearts first instead of our head. For I would rather meld with believers who in their head differed from me doctrinally all the while loving, accepting, and respecting me than to run with those who were too "enlightened" to pay me the same debt of love and acceptance - only until I paid homage to their "one-n-only" label (Ro 13:8). Just remember that true communication has it's roots in Love, not in a biased opinion and this is the unity of which no labellistic prejudice can "X" out.

Our subconscience always yearns for truth though our mind tries to convince it that truth already abounds, thus we starve the inner man (Ps 51:6). No wonder people are grouchy towards other's opinions. One of the main reasons it's hard to see through some of our differences is that individually our consciences are affected by what we believe, holding us accountable even before other's convictions. Sometimes another's viewpoint can place an unrecognizable pressure upon our feeble consciences. We know deep within that "together we stand, divided we fall". The reality of heaven and hell weighs more heavily upon our being than we realize. Fear is the opposite of faith, stemming from spiritual insecurity which stems from unacknowledged pride. And since God's love for us and our love for Him and others is what gives faith it's grounding (Gal 5:6; Eph 3:17-19, 4:2,3,12-16), faith in what we believe intimately involves others around us whether we want it to or not. Hence Satan can use our theologies against us whether they be right or wrong. As our innermost being becomes progressively grounded in heavens truth the light of that truth will shine peacefully through eyes of love (Eph 4:3; Col 3:15). For there is a deep-seated peace in "knowing the truth" which only humility can implant. Bitter contension is a dead give away for those who claim they are grounded in truth. It's actually a smoke-screen which a guilty sub-conscience, polluted by the refusal to walk in unconditional love and true humility, hides behind in order to avoid the circumcision of one's pride. There's much more to "the truth" than merely being right. To veer a little from our context, I'm not saying that some type of "universal love" is what we should all aim for (as many counterfeit religions have that). I'm talking about a supernatural heavenly Love beyond mans comprehension. Earthly love can easily be distiguished from heavenly Love since we all, sinner and saint alike, have been made in God's image with His innate base moralities embedded within. For anyone reading this who may not believe Christ was God in the flesh who died then rose from the dead please ponder this: Of all the religions in the world, pick the one which demonstrates the most love and, God willing, you'll see it's found in TRUE Christianity - not the hypocritical Christianity so many witness in today's media such as the constant wars between Catholics and Protestants. Have no fear, they're just a bunch of label lovin hypocrites (of whom God indeed loves) fighting their way toward a mercyless hell (Mt 24:12,13, 5:44-45a; Jn 13:34,35, 14:24, 15:8,10,12,17; Ga 5:6,14,15,20b-21,26; Col 2:7-10,18,19; Ja 4:1-4; all of 1 John; and these are but a few references).

Yet why do we make things so complicated instead of complimentary?! Could it be that our minds can't comply when there's too much complication? Are we so intellectually concerned with the extra ordinary that we miss the ordinary. Can we not "hang" with one another long enough for the truth of a matter to surface, if indeed it ever surfaces at all? That something's in the way of the theologians mentioned above, of whom God desires to be unified in intimate fellowship (which the Scriptures declare is a possibility), shows that there's more to their disagreements than mere logic. And if this applies to seasoned scholars, how much more to those who seldom study.

Complete understanding comes with time because time has been warped by sin which houses the very element of impatience. Consequently, those who are "quick" to give us a piece of their mind are actually drawing upon a mentality stigmatized by the very thing we all lack so desperately - time! It takes time to solve a theological Rubiks cube as complex as religion, yet how many are quick to boast in their having solved it?! It's not that God can't drop instant revelational knowledge on whomever He pleases concerning a verse, doctrine, or whatever because He does this often. It's just that most label lovers consider their knowledge to be "revelational" all the time. We want everything clear cut, one way or the other. We hate lingering in the middle doctrinally because it takes alot of patience and effort on our part until a matter is resolved, or maybe NEVER resolved, in our own heart (1 Cor 13:12; Ja 1:3-5). We want to be "gounded" in truth ASAP! Many times anxiety magnitizes pre-mature doctrinal faith to ones truth hungry soul not willing to wait on the Lord and HIS wisdom from above. Too many of us live on borrowed time without counting the precious seconds afforded us by God today. Yesterday indeed holds many significant findings, but that doesn't mean that all is found. When push comes to shove time buckles under the strain of impatience creating many interpretational gaps in the mind of man, weakening it theologically and logically as a result. We think we're so smart because what we already see was something so stimulating during our time of "proselytism" that we hastily made up our minds (or should I say others made them up?) under a canopy of labellistic celebration. What we didn't see were the things necessary to unlock the mysteries of what we now think we see. Man is so quick to draw conclusions. We want everything now, signed, sealed, and delivered, and this includes religious matters as well - if not more so. I can't number the times I've witnessed people arguing over doctrinal issues which take even some of the most brilliant scholars a lifetime of research (in their attempts to solve the problematics of religious antiquity) before they tie the loose ends of uncertainty in knots, which incidentally are constantly being undone by "other" skilled knot tiers. Labels and the worship thereof are one of but many devices evil forces in the heavenly realms use in order to arouse impatience within God's people (Eph 6:12). To the proud they are hell's electrical conductors charging a secure affixation in the minds of all who prove to be gullible. This in turn triggers a vicious cycle which slowly mesmerizes the victim into believing he or she is doctrinally smart, while others - "poor things" - remain nebulously dumb. Anxious to catechize every Simon the Simpleton, who is seen as open prey to these 1st century Pharisaical orders, an unholy reincarnation transpires converting the naive into conventional 21th century "Sophists" who zealously delight in keeping their "family tradition" going. This can only redound in futher disunity and discord as labels wax strong in public acclaim and notoriety.

Patience, on the other hand, produces unity and is in a competitive race with the impatience laden within each of us (Pro 29:20; Job 4:2; Ro 7:25). True unity has no need for any labellistic crutches to procure its way to greatness. It trusts in the tutelage of patience, not in some frenzied grappling for the perfect "institutionalized" systematic formula for truth, which in all actuality stems from the fear of death which warped time (impatience) effects. Regarding volitional intention, pride and humility, then, are the deciding mediums which hang in the balance between each of these spiritual domains. Again, keep in mind most of these concepts are unreconized and "below the surface". When people argue over controversial doctrine most of what comes into play is not the words themselves, but the attitudes behind them conjured by the labels which agitate their unity. Even some of those who don't argue over bible doctrine may still be overtly restrained from without, yet remain contentious within thinking to themselves "I thank God that I'm not like other people: Baptists, Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, or even like this 'Holy Roller'. I suck theological bosom twice a week, and I tithe to my church of all that I earn" (adaptation mine; Lk 18:11, 12). How unfortunate it is for those who "see". If only they could "see" their swollen attitudes are exactly what a high minded individual draws upon in order to initiate self-glorification. This is basically the same sin Adam and Eve indulged in (read Eccl 7:8). Instead of being content to "know in part" for the time being as patience carried them on to greatness (i.e. revelations as well as glory, for they were natural - not supernatural [Ge 2:7, 25, 3:7a, 19; 1 Cor 15:44-47, 52]), they became impatient as that word of law and death (Ge 2:16, 17) loomed over their curious consciences like a vulture just waiting for them to make the wrong move. Satan is patient in our becoming impatient and uses law, ego, ambition, and ignorance in order to deceive (Ro 7:8-11; 1 Jn 2:16; Hos 4:6). Upon their "falling short of the glory of God" time and unity were fractured and separation was the result, from each other and their Creator. An unrecognized fear of the possibility of one's falling short of glorification results many times in sword (Word) fights in which label lovers engage in order to defend their doctrinal road to heaven. It matters not that their trust lies in a teaching if zeal for that teaching is blinding them from the simplicity of loving the Teacher along with His pupils. Christ himself is the embodiment of all Godly doctrine and in whom we should place our entire trust, because those who are enthused with their doctrines more than God and His people exercise fear (1 Jn 4:18), which incidentally is brother to pride. And where there is pride there is impatience and if impatience has it's perfect work instead of patience (Ja 1:3-8) then the erring disciple will be more inclined to give up his or her confidence and fight of faith internally, even while holding on to an external form of religion. Many are they who blast off with a roar, yet end in a fizzle (see Lk 8:13, 14:27-34; Eccl 7:8; Heb 6:11, 12). And if this divisive course of action is persisted in spiritual death will ensue, festering within until eternal death - it's end result - inevitably prevails (Ja 1:12-15, 5:19, 20; Ro 2:9, 6:21b; also see "thanatos" in BADG, 2d ed, sec 2).

Sometimes people go so far as to equate the "side issues", or what i call "secondary" truths, with salvation. When believers of this type erect word wars they forget, or don't realize, that it's the Spirit of God's Word which paves the road to heaven and not the Word or the labellistic systems of thought themselves. A person must first have the love of God "shed" abroad in his or her heart to be enslaved to righteousness (Ro 6:16) in order to walk up the straight and narrow road which Christ our forerunner has already paved for us. And all who trust Jesus, rather than themselves and their opinions, with the darkness their headlights haven't yet reached will eventually come to the end of that road. But the proud will crash and burn due to headlight overload. For what nitrous oxide does to an engine anxiousness does to one's spiritual vision, to the point that what lies directly ahead isn't as illumined in the long haul as it would have been had they been content to regulate a paced and patient output level of light which alone comes from God. But this isn't the error of which we need to repent since we all struggle with sin and immaturity. It's the cause behind the effect we need to repent of; the motive behind the action; and the pride beneath the hostility. Those stubborn in trusting traditional labellistic doctrine for salvation more than God and His love alone reap far more than a good argument, for they sow far more than a bad doctrine (Jer 17:7).

At this point please allow me the privilege of reiterating the fact that I fully acknowledge there are many "labelized" believers who don't worship labels, who are mature in the love of God and who detest the animosity generated between believers of differing sects (see the introduction for info pertaining to just who this book is targeted). Yet hopefully, even those who play a part in holding up labellistic walls within Christ's Body - whether consciously or unconsciously - will eventually discern this subtle "normality" Satan has succeeded in blinding us with and allow them to fall by the wayside.

Even though labels may not affect the mature enough to cause real harm, they usually affect the weaker, less mature converts; not to mention those who possibly would have come into the fold had they not witnessed the divisions amongst the so-called "brotherhood" of believers. At nearly every street corner they notice our brazen idols: "The United Congregational Ecclesiastical Apostalic Ascentional First or Second Church of this, that, and the other", amen, hallelujah, thus saith the Lord, hail Mary, kum-by-ya, etc, etc. Not only is all this superficialness a major turn off, but doctrinal error is also hightened and sustained as well. Until we're willing to wipe our theological slate clean of all existing labellistic "pedigogy" then error and division will continue to thrive while the one true label - The Body of Christ - of which we should all be content to corporately identify with, lay shrouded in suspicion and dismay.

Now the natural reaction in conceiving such a flexible assembly as this is overwhelmingly one of skepticisim and doubt, yet flexibility is precisely the atmosphere truth needs in order to grow. Without the theological dictates of segregational labels present, our combined efforts, coupled with God's anointing, patience, humility, biblical excommunication (sadly unpracticed in most churches today), and vigilance, we could clear away much of the doctrinal debris we've allowed to accumulate throughout Church history.

Man basically loves the old. He's intrigued with the past. He cherishes "the good old days", heirlooms, relics, and antiquity in general. We repeatedly sing the same old songs, preach the same old rutty sermons, quote the same old pet cliché verses, and conduct the same old worship services in the same old monotonous way. We've become stagnant, ritualistic, typical, and suckers for tradition. Just dare let someone introduce something new and different and "Oh my!" many will fight you tooth and nail in order to shut you up and cut you off with no advances. Now every church has it's share of weeds who love tradition more than truth, Moses more than Christ, the tabernacle more than the Church. But I'm not as concerned with them as much as I am the parched plants of God whom they choke. One may be easily influenced only afterward to become hardly teachable. The tendency to immerse ourselves in the old lurks within all of us to a lesser or greater degree and is something we don't readily notice or think about very often, just like the labels we so commonly expect and take for granted. It's within our nature to hate change, especially when it comes to certain doctrines we've sown time and effort into (or what we've allowed others to sow into us) only to find out later the sobering possibility that we may have missed something in the final analysis. However, if we allow God's nature to subdue our own then we'll swallow our pride the next time our conscience bears witness to our mind that it needs some theological house cleaning - a witness we otherwise would never have even noticed due to our labellistic obstinacy.

Today we have over thrice the affiliational labels we had since the days of Constantine, from the Byzantine period on up to the present and many of those the result of multiple church splits. As burning embers are separated from each other so that a fire may not burn as brightly, so we as a whole are separated to the extent we persist in stamping our foreheads with these "legislative" nametags from hell. Satan uses such devices as leverage against our exegetical inadequacies that we may be separated unto religion instead of relationship.

Isn't it high time we bring back the one label we were all meant to rally under; the one which those in Acts 2:42-47 deemed to be quite adequate?! This is an obtainable goal, though realistically, not on a large scale since somebody's label will always be around to obstruct until Christ's return. But unity is within reach for a remnant. And we needn't fear that it's at the expense of truth. For what is truth? Doctrinal accuracy? Everybody claims they have that. Religious independence? Sadly for some, yes, if their dependence lies in a truth forged by that religion. Jesus said "I am the truth" and that His words were truth - not always our translation or interpretation of those words (Jn 14:6; 17:17).

Biblically, there's no fine line between truth and "the" truth, contrary to popular opinion. Close study of the Greek text for the words "true" and "truth" along with the context they're placed in holds no soterological association with the phrase "the truth", except for our continuance in santification unto the day of ultimate perfection (I Cor 15:51-54). In other words, God in his forebearance can put up with a lot of bad or undeveloped doctrine so long as you have the main doctrine (1 Jn 3:23). Bad doctrine can indeed be a hinderance and even deadly, but if you're studying in humility, praying, and doing the best you can, God knows this and will gradually lead you into more truth. Yet if we become proud, lazy, and ungrateful (thinking we can relax now that we have "the" truth and so fail to add other divine attributes [Pr 1:5; 2 Pe 1:5-12]), we slip into a dangerous rut which numbs us with traditional complacency. This makes us no different than the deceived cultic who doesn't even know "the" truth. Jesus told the hypocrites of His day to "practice the latter without neglecting the former (Mt 23:23)." Likewise, give the main doctrine of God precedence in your life without neglecting to polish up on the "secondary" doctrines. Much doctrinal truth we lack and some of what we already possess is still out of synch contextually with truths we haven't yet found or divided accurately. Yet God is merciful and is pleased with those who by His grace acknowledge and esteem "the" Truth while remaining humbly patient in their studies concerning the secondary truths.