Modern
society appears increasingly divisive and even discriminatory against the
church. We should not be surprised by this because Jesus told us as much (John
16:33). In a continuous battle waged between the flesh and the spirit then, how
should the church respond? Furthermore, as worshipers of the living God, how is
the church to live in unity as she is called to do (Rom 12:18)? Modern culture
is seemingly divisive; yet we have been placed here for a time such as this and
are called to live in harmony with other believers in an ever-persecuting
world. There is not merely a bipolarity of views on various cultural issues,
e.g. sexuality, war, music, film, and racism, but there is, in fact, a
plurality of cultural views even in the church. How is it possible then to live
in unity? To some who profess Christ as Lord and Savior, unity appears to mean
giving way to the demands of a sinful world; to some, it seems to mean
condemning the world or even other churches who are vastly different; to
others, there seems to be a link between political alignment and faith. These
examples though, no matter how good the intentions, are flawed, and the
Christian faith is never married to one political ideal.
Tertullian would suggest that “the unity of the church of God
is a perpetual fact; our task is not to create it, but to exhibit it.”[1]
How then are we, as the unified church, to live in the reality of unity in a
constantly divisive world pulling individuals believers in every direction? And
where is the church to draw the line between foundational unity and dissent?
Culture certainly affects the worldview of everyone including individual
Christians. Therefore, Christians will individually share disparate approaches
to issues; this is good though because it exemplifies a diverse but unified
church. The implication then is that the church should live in harmony
irrespective of personal convictions. The mistake we often make is a feeble
attempt to universalize personal convictions. In a society moving further and
further away from truth then, the body of Christ still has a responsibility to
live in the reality of unity. I would like to suggest some ways the church
should live in unity despite the torment of a confused world, which has surely
infiltrated the church.
The Church Should Live in Agreement on Foundational Issues
First, the
church must be unified on foundational issues. Foundational issues are
foundational because they are not optional. The body of Christ cannot live in
the reality of her new nature unless she agrees on the foundation.
What Constitutes a
Foundational Issue?
Foundational
issues are resultant of two aspects: 1) the explicitness of Scripture and 2)
the explicitness of church history. We might conclude that Scripture holds more
weight than church history, but church history, nonetheless, is a crucial
factor to examine. Foundational issues are those which are overtly presented in
the text of the Bible. Explicit issues are found to be present throughout
church history because of their unambiguous mention in Scripture. As if we need
something more than the clarity of Scripture, we should also examine what the
great churches and her leaders throughout history have said about various
issues. If it has been ever-present throughout history in a normalized fashion,
it should be considered a foundational issue. We are typically able to name
foundational issues without much thought, e.g. salvation by grace through faith
in Christ, the virgin birth, and the authority of the Bible. We don’t have to
think much about these issues to believe them because they are so woven into
the fabric of our foundation. On these issues then, we should stand firm
without wavering. They are foundational because they are explicit in the
narrative of Scripture and church history.
The Church Should Live in Grace on Subordinate Issues
On
subordinate issues, there is room for disagreement. If foundational issues are
explicit in Scripture and church history, secondary issues are not. The mistake
Christians often make is presenting the appearance of explicitness on secondary
issues. We could likely think of many secondary issues where various Christians
might disagree, e.g. baptism, communion, and the doctrine of election. On these
issues, we, the church, must live in grace and allow room for much
disagreement.
What Constitutes a
Subordinate Issue?
What
constitutes a subordinate issue is the lack of clarity in the Bible and in
church history. These are non-salvific issues. For these issues, we normally
see a range of views throughout the history of the church; that is the result
of Scripture’s opacity. Many people do not like to think of the Bible as
ambiguous, but there are certainly paradoxes and areas where issues are unclear,
or should I say that there are areas where there is room for theological (and
political) difference. The implication then is that it is acceptable Christians
to disagree with one another on these issues. We must, in fact, live in
Christ’s grace on these issues.
The Church Should Not Expect Holiness from the World
I’ve
discussed how to live in unity with each other thus far. How should we live in
unity in an opposing world though? The first thing we should do is not expect
holiness from the world. A grave mistake the church often makes is possessing
an expectation for a lost world to live a moral lifestyle. If Christians who
possess the life-changing power of the Holy Spirit continue to struggle with
sin, why should we expect those apart from Christ to live in holiness? I firmly
believe that any good that comes of any human is the result of God’s holiness;
it is not the result of any amount of good we possess because we are naturally
fallen and evil. Living in the reality that the world is evil and in need of a
Savior should foster mercy from the church though. It should not be a conduit
of hatred. Certainly, we should preach the truth of Scripture, but forcing
morality will never work. The government cannot legislate morality, and the
church cannot hate or scare people into it. It is imperative that the church
realizes the depravity of a fallen world and live in light of mercy, not
hatred.
Recent
events in Charlottesville have caused me to ponder if the church has responded
correctly in two ways. First, it is likely (although unproveable) that many of
the Charlottesville protestors are not believers. I don’t suggest this as a
form of judgment, but Scripture is clear that the gate of salvation is small
and the road is narrow (Matt 7:14). Largely, among any group of people, there
will be few Christians then. As the church, we should respond to the hateful
protestors and rhetoric in love while, at the same time, condemning the act
itself. Fighting hate with hate has never worked and will never work. The
church must be unified in her stance against racism but also respond to racists
in love. We cannot expect holiness from those who are not Christians; even Christians
fail as well. For reasons of humanity’s imperfection and God’s grace, we should
love rather than hate.
Secondly and from a different
perspective, we have a responsibility to respond in love not only to the
hateful protestors but also to the hateful responses to them. In the wake of
the Charlottesville events, many political and church leaders, with good
intentions, responded with hate. We should, in no way, negate the horrible
reality of racism, but we should also measure our words carefully. There are
certainly ways to stand against racism in unequivocal terms while,
concurrently, sending a message of love to all people. There is a fine line too
because to be unequivocal, ambiguity is not an option; however, calling
protestors terms such as “subhuman” and “monsters” does no good. In fact, it is
counterproductive to a message of love but rather spreads a message of hate.
There is no such thing as a subhuman, for all people are created in God’s
image. Yes, even 9/11 terrorists are not subhuman, and there is indeed a
capacity within the Lord to love and save them if he so chooses, which is why
we, as the church, must pray for the salvation of all.
As the
church, we have the responsibility to preach a message of love, not hate. To do
this, we must first live in the reality that the world is not holy and is in
direct opposition to the gospel. The church must be unified in her stance
against evil but also unified in her stance for grace.
Disassociating with Apostacy Is Not Synonymous with Anonymity
Because the
line between unity and dissent in an ever-opposing world can be fine, there are
times when the church must disassociate with those who might try to harm to the
gospel. It should already be clear that we should set ourselves apart from the
world (which is, in no way, an excuse not to befriend the world), but there are
also times when the church must disassociate fellowship with other believers. I
believe those times are when individual believers and local churches
continuously act in ways contradictory to the explicit commands of Scripture.
The blatant attitude of those who cause disunity is what gives the church
leverage to disassociate here. When this attitude exists in an unrepentant fashion,
the church must disassociate fellowship; this is known as church discipline, of
which there is a biblical model to follow when employed (Matt 18:15-20). It is
not often that the church discusses discipline, but the Bible is clear that
sometimes it is necessary to remove fellowship of apostate believers in some
cases (1 Cor 5:13, Matt 18:17). Often, however, believers make the mistake of
thinking church discipline is synonymous with anonymity, i.e. throw the person
out and have nothing to do with them, showing them vast hatred. This is not the
case though. To oust an apostate believer means treating them as one who is not
a believer; the insinuation then is that we love that person. We do not
exercise church discipline or disassociate with apostacy in the name of hatred
but rather in the name of love. The line for disassociation may be thin, but
when apostacy is clear, the church is called to disassociate. It does not stop
there though because we then love those people and continue to pray for them
with the hope of restoration and a changed life in the power of the Holy
Spirit. Disassociation then is not the same as anonymity.
The Church Is Perpetually Unified
Tertullian
had it right when he said that the unity of the church is a perpetual fact. We
are to merely claim that truth and live in its reality. There is a spiritual
war raging around us at every moment. In a world that tugs at us so frequently and
in so many directions, the church has a responsibility to continue living in
unity. Sadly, many professing churches and believers will become apostate. We
certainly must separate ourselves from apostacy, but we must also continue to
live in unity as the remnant. Even if the visible church abandons all orthodox
teachings,[2]
there will still be a remnant. Will we allow an opposing world to infiltrate
our sacred walls? Will we allow disunity in the professing church to stir
tension? Or will we stand firm upon the foundation of the Bible and church
history and, furthermore, be the conduits of God’s mercy and grace? My hope and
prayer is the latter. The issues we face in our culture are magnificent indeed,
but God’s mercy is far greater than any battle humankind or Satan himself may
wage. Let us live in the perpetual truth of unity in all facets and issues.
[1] Dow Kirkpatrick, ed., The Doctrine of the Church (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964),
187.
[2] The term, “orthodox,”
here implies the central beliefs of the Apostles Creed. While many churches do
not utilize the Apostles Creed itself in worship practices, the statements of
belief mentioned in the text, being a summary of necessary Christian beliefs,
are those all churches should hold to first and foremost.
