A Senior Saint on Unity

Iain H. Murray @ 9marks@org discusses the nature of unity:

1. Unity has too often been pursued by those who are not advocates of the “great foundation truths.” “Unity”—interpreted as organisational oneness—has been treated as a good remedy to stop the decline of Christian influence, with “fellowship” given priority over “doctrine,” contrary to Acts 2:41.
2. The quest for unity around personalities and preachers (the threat in the Corinthian church) is never lasting, although it may seem to have short-lived success.
3. Müller’s call “to make less of non-essentials” is not exactly straightforward, and the very phrase is liable to misinterpretation. True believers do disagree over some issues in Scripture—church government and the ordinance of baptism, for a start. Yet history has shown that all attempts to downplay these distinctives, and thus to end denominations, are going to fail. Believers are going to hold convictions on all that Scripture reveals. The policy of John Wesley and others to deem anything “not fundamental” as “mere opinion” is not good enough. Given the imperfect understanding of all Christians, and the need for corporate agreement on some secondary issues, denominations of one kind or another will remain. Better for us to accept this fact and, as J.C. Ryle says, keep the walls as low as possible and shake hands over them often.[1] This is not to deny that the distinction between secondary and fundamental truths, while not always easy to determine, is an important one.
4. Christians agree that unity is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:3). It follows that when believers experience more of his grace and power, the bond between them will grow. Conversely, what William Hamilton once said is true, “The more carnal a Christian is, the more sectarian he will be.” An outpouring of the Spirit always brings greater unity. What Daniel Baker reported as happening in the revival at Beaufort, South Carolina, was true in many parts of the States at the time of the Second Great Awakening:

“The effect no one can conceive who was not present. Politics were laid aside; business stood still … The union of sects produced on the occasion was not the least striking feature of the event. Distinctions were laid aside. Christians of all denominations met and worshipped together; indiscriminately in either church, and the cordiality of their mutual attachment was a living commentary on the great precept of their Teacher, ‘Love one another.’”

What are the needs in the contemporary scene with regard to unity?

1. In an age of doctrinal indifference, we need to be awake to the difficulty of obeying the injunction to “follow peace with all men” while contending for the faith. In that regard, we should do our utmost to avoid derogatory terms in speaking of fellow Christians. All distinctive identity labels should be used very sparingly. Christians are to love and serve one another in all circumstances.
2. We need to be alert to the threat that innocently adjusting services to the musical taste of modern culture poses to the reverent worship of God. God’s powerful works have always been accompanied more by awe, penitence, and silence than by noise and “celebration.” Practice, as well as faith, needs to conform to the simplicity of the New Testament. The fear of God and the comfort of the Holy Spirit belong together (Acts 9:31). True worshippers should know something of what is said of Jacob: ‘He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven’ (Gen 28:17).”
3. Instead of attempting to form new alliances and organizations, we need to discern what God is doing. His work will last for eternity. It is one of the brightest hopes in the United States at the present time that gospel preachers, from different denominational backgrounds, are being spontaneously drawn together in a common concern to advance the cause of Christ. This cause does not need new labels or structures; most of all it needs the anointing of the Spirit, more prayer, love, and humility. Announcements of success, or satisfaction with numbers, are to be feared rather than sought. God’s work needs no publicity. A true advance and recovery will be marked by the sense of weakness and need which gives all glory to God. Let us not stop short of seeking a real spiritual awakening!

Together for What?

Mark Dever @ 9marks.org considers how we can encourage each other to hold the truth with humility by setting out six questions:

1. Do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
2. What are some common fights Christians have?
3. What’s the specific purpose for cooperating?
4. What must Christians agree upon? (Essentials)
5. What may Christians disagree about? (Non-essentials)
6. How can Christians disagree well?

1. DO WE FOLLOW COMMANDS TO PURIFY OR TO UNITE?

The Basic Problem

I trust most Christians recognize the problem confronting us: We live in a fallen world, where the truth will not always find a home. What’s true is not necessarily the same as what’s popular.

The Unity People

The unity people love Bible chapters like John 17. They perceive clearly that our unity with one another testifies to our unity with God in Christ, and that our love for one another shows God’s love for us (as Jesus taught in John 13:34-35). They love the love passages in the Bible:

• “Make my joy complete by being like-minded” (Phil. 2:2);
• “agree with each other in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2);
• “all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10);
• “My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love” (Col. 2:2).

The Purity People

The opposite of the unity people are the purity people. They want purity of doctrine and purity of life. They want purity in our churches, in our Christian colleges, and in our seminaries.

2. WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FIGHTS CHRISTIANS HAVE?

For now, let’s consider another question: what are some common fights among Christians?

3. WHAT’S THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR COOPERATING?

Purpose Matters

Circumstances May Matter

Creeds & Confessions

4. WHAT MUST CHRISTIANS AGREE UPON?

The Apostles Teaching

How To Learn

How do we learn what we must agree on? Let me suggest three ways: through the Bible, through our church, and through our conscience.

Clarity and Agreement

How can you tell if a doctrine is important and worth seeking agreement upon? Here are several tests for answering this question:

• How clear is the doctrine in Scripture?
• How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)?
• How near is the doctrine (or its implications) to the gospel itself?
• What would be the practical and doctrinal effects of allowing disagreement in this area?

Right News, Right Views

One of the best words for Christian is “evangelical.” An “evangelical” is one who is defined by certain specific news. “Good news” is what evangel means. Jesus says in the Gospel of John that the correct belief or views about his identity is necessary for someone to have eternal life; otherwise they will die in their sins (John 8:24).

Believe that God Is One
Believe that the Bible Is God’s Truth
Believe in the Gospel

5. WHAT MAY CHRISTIANS DISAGREE ABOUT?

Practical Matters

True or False

Regular or Irregular

Disputable Matters

Non-Essential ? Unimportant

6. HOW CAN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WELL?

Roger Nicole has suggested that we answer these two questions:

What do I owe the person who differs from me?
What can I learn from the person who differs from me?

CONCLUSION

John Woodhouse on Unity

Andy Naselli @ http://andynaselli.com noted that the Briefing published a thoughtful three-part series by John Woodhouse (the Principal of Moore College since 2002) after his addresses at the Reform National Conference in Swanick, UK, in October 2001.

1. “When to Unite and When to Divide.” The Briefing 279 (Dec. 2001).
2. “The Unity of the Church.” The Briefing 281 (Feb. 2002).
3. “Christian Unity and Denominations.” The Briefing 284 (May 2002).

What We Can Learn from the Marines

A Proud Heritage

By Chuck Colson @ http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061117/23514.htm

I was one of those fortunate enough to attend the dedication of the Marine Corps Museum at Quantico—a beautiful structure rising out of the Virginia countryside in the shape suggestive of the famous image of the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. While I waited for the festivities to begin on that glorious autumn day, I was struck by the incredible camaraderie displayed by all of the Marines and former Marines.

An 85-year-old man sitting right behind me said, “I’ve been a Marine for sixty-seven years.” Once a Marine, always a Marine. He enlisted when he was 18, did his duty in the Pacific, came home, and built a life for himself. And here he was, halfway across the country, celebrating the opening of the museum.

Jim Lehrer, the PBS newscaster and a former Marine, was the day’s emcee, and he explained it well. “What’s important to understand about Marines,” he said, “is that they know that their safety depends on the person on their right and the person on their left.” You are bonded together in battle.

Then the question hit me: Why is it that the Church does not feel the way the Marines do?

Do we believe that our safety or our Christian faith depends upon the people in the pews on our left and on our right?

The story of Jason Dunham says it all. President Bush introduced Dunham’s parents, who received their son’s posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation’s highest military award.

Dunham, a corporal from upstate New York, was leading a squad of Marines in Iraq when they were ambushed by insurgents. During the hand-to-hand combat, Dunham leapt to place his helmet over a live grenade. Dunham’s bravery saved his friends—and cost him his life.

Why did he do it? To save the men serving under him. It was true heroic altruism—the one thing that Darwinian theories of natural selection can never account for. But would you or I be prepared to show what Jesus called no greater love? Would we lay down our lives for our Christian brothers?

As the various Marine battle flags were paraded in front of the dais, bearing names familiar to every Marine—Tripoli, Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, Fallujah—I know I wasn’t the only one in the crowd with my spine tingling, my chest swelling with pride in the heritage of the Corps.

But then I wondered how many Christians really understand the proud heritage of our faith; how the martyrs in the first century gave their lives to preserve the Gospel; how Christians through the centuries have championed great causes for the benefit of mankind: the abolition of slavery, the development of hospitals and universities, care for the poor, the protection of human life. We all remember Mother Teresa, of course, and some of the great missionaries, but how about the saints of bygone years? How about the Christians in the Roman Empire who gave their lives to tend the sick during the great plagues when pagan doctors fled?

The story of human history is a great cosmic battle between good and evil, a greater struggle than any war in human history. We’re engaged in it, and we’re on God’s side. What if we Christians had the same sense of loyalty, commitment, and responsibility for our heritage as do these proud Marines?

A nagging question in the midst of a glorious autumn day.

_________________________________________________

From BreakPoint®, November 16, 2006, Copyright 2006, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Shouldn't the Church Be More Unified?

By Dr. Derek Thomas

We should begin by noting that we share some of your concerns over the current split among Christian denominations. The New Testament does speak about unity among believers, of cooperation, of a corporate nature that belongs to all believers, because all true believers are really united to the same Head, and together form the body of our Lord, Jesus Christ. As you note, we find evidence of unity in Acts 2, in Jesus’ High Priestly prayer of John 17, and in the Pauline Epistles. But that is not to say that we believe that this language of unity precludes the realities of denominations, at least not necessarily.

While the New Testament does speak of Christian unity in abundance, the concept of unity is not devoid of meaning. That is to say, that when the New Testament speaks about unity, it is speaking about a unity based on truth. The truth of the gospel. The historic account of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of a Trinitarian God who has made us and sustains us and who redeems His people from their sins. So while we long for Christian unity among all believers today, we must begin by stressing that there are certain requirements that the New Testament places on our unity. It is not enough simply to claim the title Christian; that claim must be accompanied with some basic beliefs held common by all Christians. And so the early church, recognizing the importance of unity based upon revealed truth, formulated certain doctrinal statements clarifying what it means to be a Christian. We have the Nicene Creed, the Apostle’s Creed, that Athanasius Creed, all given as statements that outline what the Bible teaches as the requirements for admittance into the fellowship of believing Christians. Christian unity in the 21st century must also start by defining and defending the corpus of beliefs that one must hold in order to be a Christian. For there are all sorts of groups, purporting to be “Christians,” but who flatly deny some of the basic tenants of the faith. Think of groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, who profess to belong to the Christian faith, and yet deny the very basic concepts of the Christian faith. Surely the New Testament knows nothing of a common ecclesiastical unity with those who deny the divinity of Jesus! And so we must begin by having a clear understanding of what a Christian is before the question of unity can be decided. It would be foolish to attempt to unite Christianity by admitting those who claim to be Christian despite their clear denial of what is central to the Christian faith. And in fact, that reality has directly resulted in the proliferation of denominations today.

After we have dismissed those who claim the title Christian in name alone, we are left with still a large number of groups professing the Christian faith. What are we to do with all of these denominations who, while disagreeing over certain secondary matters (i.e., how to organize the church, whether or not to baptize infants, whether or not the extraordinary gifts of the New Testament continue today, etc.), agree on the central issue of faith (the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, substitutionary atonement, faith as the instrument of salvation, etc.)? We start by recognizing that devout, sincere, mature, intelligent Christians can and do disagree over their understanding of what the Bible teaches about these things. True Christians, seasoned Christians, reasonable Christians have for nearly two millennia read the same Bible, and yet not always arrived at the same understanding on every point of theology. That is not to say that the Bible says conflicting things, or that nothing in the Bible is clear. Far from it! The Bible is crystal clear with regard to the essentials of the faith. And the Bible speaks authoritatively on these secondary matters as well. But creatures, tainted as we are with sin, and in possession of finite and fallible minds and reasons, can and do draw varying conclusions from the same biblical material. It is this reality that has also led to the establishment of a variety of denominations.

But the presence of denominations does not deny the essential unity Christians enjoy. Our unity with one another, despite denominational differences, remains un-severed. It was purchased at the cross, prayed for by our Savior, and spoken of as a reality by the inspired Apostle Paul. We are united to one another. And because that is the reality, it should shape our actions.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is one example of an outward manifestation of a spiritual reality. Because we are united to one another, we strive to walk together, shoulder to shoulder, as we engage in the work of the kingdom of God. We purposefully strive to stress those common beliefs which we have together, the essentials of the faith, those things passed down by our spiritual fathers, in such a way that we go together as far as we can—recognizing that there may be a time when conscience will no longer allow it—and remain committed to maintaining our progress together. To put it another way, we consciously decide to focus on our sameness instead of our recognized differences. In this way, we reflect our unity with one another while still recognizing and respecting the differences which we have.

Dr. Derek Thomas is an Alliance Council member, the editorial director of reformation21, and the minister of teaching at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, MS.

True and False Unity

A Biblically based commentary on current issues that impact you

True and False Unity

by Bob DeWaay

“Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27)

Over the past few months I have received many phone calls and emails like the following:

I need some advice; I have been told that I am a bad influence on the congregation and that I am dividing the body of Christ. What happened was that our pastor decided to change the church to the seeker sensitive model. He no longer preaches the gospel. The sermons are watered down and have little Biblical content. What Bible is used is from a paraphrase. The music is more entertainment than worship. Everything has changed. When I asked the pastor about it, he told me these changes were necessary for the church to reach new people and grow. I told him I strongly disagree and asked him to preach the gospel. He has most of the church board on his side. I was saved in this church and have supported it for many years. I do not want to be divisive; but it doesn’t seem right that Bible teaching and gospel preaching have been removed from the church. What shall I do?¹

We are in the midst of a radical change in evangelicalism that has left countless Christians starving for God’s Word in their churches. Proponents of the change have labeled as “divisive” those who resist the movement away from gospel preaching and Bible teaching. Opponents of the change are declared judgmental and selfish “Pharisees” and are told that they should be more loving toward others and quit hanging onto their old ideas about church. In short the “troublemakers” are told they must embrace the new paradigm or leave.

At issue is the true nature of Christian unity. Are we unified by God’s work of grace that converted us, giving us the unity of the Spirit with all true Christians, or are we unified organizationally with the corporate “vision” of the new paradigm change agents? My thesis is that Biblically defined unity is a gospel-centered unity that always works toward the unity of the faith. Biblically defined unity is never a unity centered about the corporate vision of the new religious marketing agents.²

True Unity is Gospel Centric

Paul exhorted the Philippians to be, “[S]tanding firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27b). The book of Philippians is filled with passages that show Paul’s passion for the gospel. He was imprisoned for the gospel, but he rejoices because his circumstances turned out for the furtherance of the gospel (Philippians 1:12). He saw the gospel as so important that he could even rejoice if it were preached by people having bad motives (Philippians 1:15-18). He rejoiced because the Philippians participated in the gospel (Philippians 1:5). As we saw in Philippians 1:27, for Paul, Christian unity was all about the faith of the gospel. To stand against opponents was a good thing because there will always be opposition to the gospel (Philippians 1:28-30). Christian unity starts with the gospel and ends with the resurrection from the dead for those who have joined Paul in seeing the surpassing value of knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8-14).

Therefore, there is no true Christian unity unless it is unity grounded in the gospel of Christ. This gospel includes the truths of the person and work of Christ (who He is, what He did, and why it is important: Philippians 2). Those who proclaim the gospel are always friends of Christian unity and will be welcomed by those who have been made one body by God’s work of grace. Paul rejoiced because the Philippians proved to be friends of the gospel. They were not ashamed of Paul’s imprisonment and had sent one of their own to risk his life to bring a gift to Paul. Paul had unity with the Philippians because of their common commitment to the gospel. This was not so with some other churches such as the one in Galatia. Anyone who speaks of Christian unity, but is not a clear proclaimer and supporter of the gospel, shows himself to be disingenuous.

Saved From Unhappy Circumstances or Saved from God’s Wrath?

A regrettable development in current evangelicalism is that the term “gospel” is often used in a way that lacks the content of the gospel as preached by Christ and His apostles. Today we hear, “come to Jesus and have a better marriage,” or “come to Jesus and find purpose in life,” or “come to Jesus and He will solve your economic or emotional problems.” None of these statements is the gospel. First of all, do the hearers of this weak message know who Jesus is? Perhaps some are Mormons who claim to believe in Jesus, but have a different Jesus. Secondly, do those who hear this message know what Jesus did for them? Maybe they hear that Christ died on the cross; but why? If Jesus came to solve their marriage problems, give them a better job, or get them off of drugs, why did He need to die on the cross for these matters? This confuses people because it is confusing. Jesus could help people solve problems without dying on the cross. God has the power to give people better marriages and find them better jobs without having His only begotten Son killed by murderous rebels.

Paul told the Philippians of Christ’s pre-existence with God and as God (Philippians 2:6), His death on the cross (Philippians 2:8), and His subsequent exaltation (Philippians 2:9). This is the essence of the person and work of Christ. This work of Christ was not to help people have less stress in the workplace, but to deliver them from the wrath of God against sin!

The true gospel is about God reconciling sinners (enemies) to Himself through the blood atonement:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:8-10)

The false “gospel” being preached today says that Jesus came to save people from a lack of purpose, lack of happiness, or from living a stress filled and problem filled existence. The true gospel delivers sinners who are God’s enemies (whether they know it or not) from God’s wrath through the blood atonement. This is the gospel Paul preached and this is the “faith of the gospel” around which Paul told the Philippians they should strive to unify. Any church that does not clearly and publicly preach this message from the pulpit, yet talks about “unity,” is promoting a false and man-made unity that is unbiblical.

The true Biblical understanding of the gospel is shown by Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-35). Paul reminded them of his previous preaching to them: “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20, 21). The gospel says, “repent and believe.” If repentance is not preached, then the apostolic pattern is not being followed and the Great Commission is not being obeyed (see Luke 24:47). After God established a church in Ephesus through the gospel, Paul nurtured them. Here is his account of how he did so: “Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). Whatever of God’s purpose is revealed is to be declared publicly. The implication is that the preacher who knows the whole counsel of God but fails to preach it is guilty before God.

Striving for True Christian Unity

The New Testament pattern is gospel preaching (which includes the person and work of Christ and the need to repent and believe) followed by nurturing the flock with the whole counsel of God. This is God’s means of establishing true Christian unity. There will always be attacks against this unity. There were such attacks in Paul’s day and Paul prophesied that such attacks would come to the Ephesian church after his departure:

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

This passage shows first there will be attacks from within the church that will threaten Christian unity. These attacks are against the faith of the gospel. Second, pastors (or elders or overseers, whatever term one uses) are commanded to guard the flock against these attacks from false teachers. The key words for church leadership, overseers, elders, and pastors, are used in Acts 20 of the same group of people.³ This shows that there is no “bishop” somewhere with final authority over the local church.

The epistles show that Paul always publicly refuted teachings that were changes or additions to the gospel of God’s grace. God graciously saving people through the gospel is the beginning and foundation of Christian unity. Those who teach things that are not consistent with this principle threaten true Christian unity. Paul’s response to those people who preached the true gospel with bad motives as opposed to those who preached a false gospel show how important it is that the gospel is preached accurately. He rejoiced about the former (Philippians 1:18) and anathematized the latter (Galatians 1:9). The content of the gospel is everything. If we cannot get that right, we are in grave peril! Paul writes, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The content is key; not how nice, kind, wonderful, or charming the preacher might be. If an angel from heaven preaching a different gospel should be rejected, how much more should some kindly pastor who seems so endearing. Some of the wolves devouring the church today are very nice people.

For Paul, to “[S]trive for the faith of the gospel” meant to fight all changes to the gospel and to challenge all compromises of the gospel. To so strive is the essence of Christian unity. But, when pastors tell their flock that members are violating Christian unity when they ask their pastors to preach the gospel—that is a perversion of the Biblical idea of unity. Those pastors are not concerned with the unity of the faith; they are concerned with conformity to their man-made agendas. Do not be intimidated by such persons. Those who strive for the faith of the gospel are true friends of Christian unity.

True Unity is Nurtured Through the Pure Teaching of Scripture

The Bible is God’s unchanging authority for all true Christians throughout the church age. It stands to reason that the more our thinking and practice are in line with the Bible, the more unified we shall be. People with a love for God because of His work of grace through the gospel and a love for the truth of Scripture will be more unified with one another as they learn Scripture together. This is how the very first church came together: “And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). It should be obvious that the “apostle’s teaching” is found in the New Testament, not in some new book that appeals to the unregenerate mind. Recent movements are promoting small groups using Acts 2:42 as the proof text.⁴ This passage is not about the size of the group; but about what they did that nurtured their faith. It is a perversion of this text to use it to promote the study of anything besides a literal translation of the Bible.⁵

The fact is that Christians who have been nurtured on the Scriptures purely taught will find themselves in unity with other such Christians even when they come from diverse cultures or different denominational affiliations. In recent experience I have enjoyed unity with people from a variety of denominational backgrounds because of our shared passion for the gospel and God’s word. On the other hand, I have met others with backgrounds similar to mine with whom I have had no such unity; we are at odds over just about everything.⁶

People with very different views on such matters as eschatology and modes of baptism can enjoy significant unity. It is not that these matters are not important—they are. Those who agree that Scripture settles all issues and that whatever Scripture says about any matter is ultimately authoritative, those people have a framework within which to work. However, if the gospel itself is compromised, there will be no unity.

Careful exegesis of Scripture nurtures the unity of the Spirit that God created through conversion. Not only does such Bible preaching and teaching unify our beliefs, but it brings unity between Christians as God uses His word to change lives. The unity of the Spirit Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:3 is that which God created through baptizing us into one body: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1Corinthians 12:13). I have argued elsewhere that God’s Word is a means of grace.⁷ Since the unity of the Spirit is to be preserved so that Christians might demonstrate the virtues of humility, patience and love toward one another (see Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12-14), we need an inward work of grace so that we overcome the fleshly motivations that would hinder this unity. This growth is nurtured by God’s Word: “like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1Peter 2:2). When human wisdom rather than God’s Word is preached in the public assembly, Christians are being robbed of one of God’s means of changing lives that would preserve the unity of the Spirit.

Furthermore, when Christians are not nurtured with the “pure milk of the word” we are not progressing toward the ultimate goal of the “unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13). The words of man that are substituted for the Word of God are a hindrance to the unity of the faith. Though “life enhancement”⁸ preachers may be popular because they appear to be more practical (i.e. relevant to the perceived needs of “seekers”), they have laid aside God’s agenda for the church. Again, thinking of the teaching in Ephesians 4 on unity, how shall we, “[A]ll attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) by listening to a series of sermons on how to cope with stress in the work place?

Exegetically sound, expository preaching preserves the unity of the Spirit by giving people God’s means by which He graciously changes lives and promotes progress toward the unity of the faith. Notice the problems that are to be therefore laid aside: “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14). The winds of doctrine that are blowing people about and undermining their precious faith must be resisted. Equipping the saints with God’s Word will give them the spiritual strength to withstand these winds and to progress in true Christian unity.

To summarize, gospel preaching aims to bring people into the unity of the Spirit because it is the means God has chosen for converting lost sinners and baptizing them into the body of Christ. Bible teaching spiritually nurtures those who have been converted and helps them grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. This is a means of mitigating fleshly attitudes and behavior, thus preserving Christian unity. Finally, the goal of gospel preaching and pure Bible teaching is that Christ’s body may come into the unity of the faith. I do not believe that full unity will happen until Christ returns. It is, however, the job of Christian leaders to guard and nurture Christian unity until He returns.

False Unity is Man-centered

We saw that in the New Testament, true unity is gospel-centric. The false unity that is being promoted today is not like that. In most cases it is unity under a religious leader’s “vision.” What is meant by the term “vision” is not the same as the Biblical usage. It is used in a modern marketing sense and relates to the leader’s mental image of what he wants the product and corporation to be like in the future.

When I was in seminary I was required to take a class that dealt with church growth. Part of the requirement was to make a field trip to witness a successful church. The one we visited had grown from a few hundred people to 2,000 through creating a children’s program that was so astounding and exciting that the kids dragged their parents to church. The other part of the program was to create community activities and teachings relevant to the parents who normally would not be interested in church. The pastor who had orchestrated this successful venture spoke at a seminary lecture. He spoke about vision and “vision casting.” He told us that Bill Gates had visualized the Windows platform and cast his vision for that to his corporation and actualized it through the processes of the corporation. In like manner, the pastor is to be a visionary who in his mind can see the church becoming something it is not, cast that vision to his key people, and set up the processes necessary to fulfill this vision. This is what that pastor had done successfully. The result was a thriving “seeker” church that was popular with people in the community.

The unity that is necessary to create a church molded from the mental image of a religious leader’s dream of an optimal future is unity under the religious corporation’s vision. To fulfill the dream each piece must work together and each piece must contribute to the purposes determined by the visionary leader. The wisdom of business gurus has been mined by Christian leaders who have created religious versions to help pastors market the church. That is precisely what I was taught in the seminary class. I resisted this publicly in the class; but many of the students bought it.

Here comes the problem. When this “vision” has to do with converting a Bible church into something else, there is an inevitable clash. The reason is that marketing the church to potential religious consumers in a given neighborhood is not the same as preaching the gospel. As I have said many times, the gospel offends sinners. The type of “vision” under which new paradigm churches unify is always linked to church growth. The church has to become something appealing to the unregenerate for this to happen in the way they envision it.

The vision that is cast to church leaders and then to the whole congregation is a plan to achieve church growth by studying a target market group and designing a church service that will appeal to that targeted group. People from that group are enticed to join the church and help reach more people like themselves.⁹ The clash comes because, to achieve this outcome, gospel preaching and pure Bible teaching from the pulpit have to go. Sinners need to hear the gospel to be converted. Regenerate Christians need Bible preaching and teaching to grow. The target group will never want it.

The marketing survey of a given neighborhood will not come back with this result: “the overwhelming majority of people in this neighborhood when queried by a scientific poll say they are looking for the gospel of Jesus Christ to be boldly preached, the message of the blood atonement, and that the Bible be clearly taught verse by verse.” The fact is that we are by nature objects of God wrath against sin (Ephesians 2:3). No unconverted sinner is going to say that he wants to hear that. The truth is that by nature we are rebels who trust self and man-made religion rather than come to God on His terms. Whatever “righteousness” we have before conversion is filthy rags. Which neighborhood sinner is going to say that he wants to hear preaching on such things? What people need (for the gospel to be preached calling them to repent and believe) and what they want (to have their religious appetites met) are totally incompatible. If what they want determines the message of the church, the church will become useless salt without savour (Matthew 5:13).

Once the leaders have made one simple decision—that the prevailing concerns and needs of the unbelieving community will determine the program and message of the church—the inevitable result is that gospel preaching and Bible teaching cannot be the mainstay of the church.

The New Vision Produces False Unity

Once it is adopted, the new corporate vision for church growth will change the nature of Christian unity. The vision is only successful if all the “team members” are willing to commit their talents, time and effort to in unity see the vision to fulfillment. Like the business corporation counterpart it was copied from, it requires everyone from the CEO to the warehouse workers to pull together for the same corporate vision and purpose. That is the reason books that train pastors to adopt this view and thereby change existing churches, teach them to be prepared to lose previous members, even most of them if it is necessary. They cannot succeed while spending energy trying to fight or cajole naysayers (i.e. born again Christians who think the gospel should be preached). The result is organizational unity under human authority in support of a corporate vision that has little to do with God’s true vision which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

One tactic that is commonly used by leaders who are converting Biblically defined churches to religious organizations designed to meet the needs of religious consumers is to accuse those who resist of being “divisive.” They cite Bible verses to unsuspecting Christians who have tender consciences and do not wish to do anything that would be harmful to their churches. These Christians know something is wrong and they notice the church becoming more worldly, less godly, and placing less emphasis on important Biblical doctrines. These Christians are told they are dividing the body and that the Bible warns about such people: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Romans 16:17). The problem is that this verse is not about unity under a new corporate marketing plan. The verse says “contrary to the teaching which you learned” (i.e. from Paul).

Those who have replaced the unity of the Spirit and the unity of the faith with unity of the pastor’s personal vision are the truly divisive ones. They are guilty of the very charge they level against dissenters within the flock. Such leaders are causing dissensions and hindrances because they have willingly laid aside the teaching of Christ and His apostles in order to promote the wisdom of man.

A “factious” person in the Bible (Titus 3:10) was one who departed from sound doctrine or Biblical practice, not one who failed to help religious leaders fulfill their vision for the future success and glory of a religious corporation. For example, Luther was considered factious by the Roman Catholic Church. Whether he was or not has to be determined by examining his doctrine and practice with the Bible and doing the same for the Roman Church. One is not automatically a heretic or divisive because he or she has a disagreement with a man-made religious corporation. This is especially true if what is causing the division is the gospel itself.

Conclusion

Jesus said, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division” (Luke 12:51). The gospel is divisive when preached to the unregenerate. Those who respond in faith are divided from those who reject it. Christian unity is unity under and through the gospel. It is created by God when He regenerates people and makes them one in spirit with other believers. It is nurtured through the teaching of sound Biblical doctrine that has as its goal the unity of the faith. False unity is unity that is demanded and prescribed by religious leaders to their own ideas and organizations. This is the unity that the religious leaders of Israel wanted and that Jesus threatened. His gospel divided their religious system and spoiled their unity. They decided they had to get rid of Him. The gospel will divide churches as well if they are not based on the gospel itself. The false unity of corporate vision to create growth through adding religious consumers to the organization will create a “church” that would be divided by the gospel if it were preached there. Those who promote pure gospel preaching are the friends of Christian unity. Those who promote man-centered “vision” for their religious systems are enemies of Christian unity. Be encouraged in your support for the gospel; the Bible says that you are pleasing Christ by so doing (Philippians 1:27).

Issue 88 - May/June 2005

---

End Notes

1. This is a sample compilation of many dozens of phone calls and emails I have received just like it.
2. They are called “pastors” but their role has little to do with feeding God’s flock and everything to do with growing a religious corporation through marketing.
3. The word for pastor (“shepherd”) is used here in verb form, to “shepherd” the flock.
4. The Purpose Driven movement uses this text as proof that small groups should be established. Most of these groups study PDL.
5. Examples of good, literal translations are KJV; NKVJ; NASB; and the ESV (the new English Standard Version). The NIV is a readable version that mostly gives a good sense of the author’s meaning. Paraphrases should be avoided for serious Bible Study. I have debated some who claim that since the New Testament was not written then, they obviously were not studying it, so we cannot use Acts 2:42 as proof of the need for studying the New Testament. However, that they were discussing the teachings of the then living apostles that they heard orally and that we instead study their authoritative writings is not substantially different. It is still the teachings of the apostles.
6. To be more specific, I have found great fellowship in the gospel with Lutheran and Reformed people and found great resistance from some Baptists and Pentecostals. I graduated from a Pentecostal Bible college and Baptist seminary. The key issue is whether the pernicious seeker movement has penetrated a given church or not. Those who resist this movement and cling to the gospel are of one ilk, those who embrace it are of another.
7. See CIC Issue 84, Means of Grace; http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue84.htm
8. I borrow this terminology from Ray Comfort’s sermon Hell’s Best Kept Secret.
9. Dan Southerland, Transitioning – Leading Your Church Through Change; (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1999) is a “how to manual” for this type of process. In it he admits he lost 300 previous members, with not preaching the gospel being one of the complaints. But the process of converting to Purpose Driven resulted in a church of 2,000 members. This book is promoted by Rick Warren who wrote the forward and it is an eye-opener for those who ask, “what happened to my church.” There is a sophisticated plan that is laid out to intentionally change the church for the purpose of church growth and by the means of making the church appealing to the average, potential religious consumer.

---

Critical Issues Commentary
P.O. Box 8068
Minneapolis, MN 55408
612-874-7484
info@cicministry.org

Thinking About Unity

By Ingrid Schlueter

With all the discussion about the comments section here at Slice I've been thinking much about unity. How sad is it that Ingrid had to write, and I agree with her one hundred percent, "I am frankly sick of some of the bickering and nastiness that is once again becoming a problem from readers."

Beloved, even though we will have differences may we be careful to honor our Lord in how we express those differences with fellow believers in our personal conversations with each other. Let us remember that it is written: "Let your speech be always with grace" (Colossians 3:16). Here is another very good reminder from A.W. Tozer on the grave importance for all of us who are in Christ to be in unity.

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:2-3)

"Unity of mind on the part of the people of God precedes the blessing. I have often heard people pray, 'Oh Lord, send the Holy Spirit that we may become a united people.' That is all right except it is precisely backwards. The Holy Spirit comes because we are a united people; He does not come to make us a united people. Our prayer should be more like, 'Lord, help us to get united in order that the blessing might flow and there might be an outpouring of oil and dew and life...' "

"This teaches us that unity is necessary to the outpouring of the Spirit of God. If you have 120 volts of electricity coming into your house but you have broken wiring, you may turn the switch, but nothing works - no lights come on, the stove doesn't warm, your radio doesn't turn on."

"Why? Because you have broken wiring. The power is ready to do its work with all the appliances in your home, but where there is broken wiring, you have no power. Unity is necessary among the children of God if we are going to know the flow of power." Success and the Christian, (086-087).

" 'Lord, help us to get united in order that the blessing might flow and there might be an outpouring of oil and dew and life. Amen.' " (Tozer on Christian Leadership, September 22)

The Flock and the Fold: A Paradigm for Unity

Careful theologians do not build their doctrine of the church merely around the use of the word ekklesia. The New Testament uses many images or word pictures to reveal truth about the church. One of the most instructive is the image of the flock, found in John 10. It occurs in one of the few parables in John’s gospel.

The parable should be read in view of the miracle story of John 9. In that story, Jesus healed a congenitally blind man. The healing infuriated the Pharisees, partly because it occurred on the Sabbath, and partly because Jesus performed it in a way that was calculated to annoy the legalists. The story concludes with a stark contrast. On the one side stands the formerly‐blind man, who turns to Christ in trust and worships Him. On the other side stand the Pharisees, who clearly reject Jesus and persecute everyone who confesses Him. This contrast sets the stage for the parable of chapter 10.

The parable is about a sheep fold. Within the fold are sheep. Different individuals present themselves to the sheep, but only one is the true shepherd. All the others are thieves and robbers. The true shepherd calls His sheep, and when they hear His voice they follow Him. The sheep that do not follow Him are not His.

Given the perspective of John 9, the parable’s general meaning is relatively easy to unpack. Jesus is the shepherd (as He Himself says later in the chapter). Therefore, the sheep that follow Him must be believers (typified by the formerly‐blind man), and the sheep that do not follow Him are unbelievers. In the “thieves and robbers” it is not difficult to see a reference to the Pharisees, whom Jesus had begun to excoriate at the end of chapter 9.

An important emblem in the parable is the fold itself. A fold is a compound or enclosure. It keeps the sheep together by creating a barrier that they cannot cross. The barrier is visible, tangible, and external to the sheep. Both kinds of sheep (those that belong to the shepherd and those that do not) are inside the fold.

The fold almost certainly represents national Israel. The point of the parable, then, is that national Israel includes both believers and unbelievers. Jesus, the true shepherd, has the right to lead them all, but not all of them will follow Him. Those who will not follow fall prey to the thieves and robbers, the Pharisees.

Once we decipher the imagery of the parable, we are in a position to notice a very surprising statement from the mouth of Jesus. It occurs in verse 3: “he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out.” Out of what? Out of the fold, of course. Given that the fold is Israel, Jesus is saying that at some point He intends to remove His sheep—His flock—from national Israel.

The removal of the flock from the fold underlines a contrast between two forms of unity. The sheep that are in the fold are kept together one way: by an external constraint. That is one kind of unity. It is the unity of the fold (the aule), and it is imposed and enforced from outside.

The sheep that follow the shepherd, however, keep together in a different way: by an internal impulse. They draw together because each is drawn to the shepherd’s voice. This is the unity of the flock, the very name of which (poimne) is related to the word for “shepherd” (poimen).

The nature of the flock’s unity is very important. It cannot be imposed from outside, and it cannot be contrived. The sheep do not draw together by looking at other sheep, but by listening to the shepherd. They experience unity, not because they long for unity, but because each longs for the shepherd. That is the nature of Christian unity. It never comes from focusing on other Christians or even upon unity itself. The only genuinely Christian unity is a byproduct, and it comes from focusing upon Christ.

Jesus designed the parable to contrast the flock (poimne) with the fold (aule). The fold, national Israel, includes both believers and unbelievers. They are held together by the external marks of participation in visible Israel. The flock, however, includes only believers—only those who know and follow the shepherd’s voice. These, He says, He intends to lead out of national Israel. When we understand all of this, we will be prepared for the most surprising truth of all. In verse 16 Jesus gives the parable its punch line. He states that He has other sheep that are not of the fold (aule). Since the fold represents Israel, these sheep have to be Gentile believers. These sheep also hear the shepherd’s voice. What Jesus says next is breathtaking: there shall be one poimne with one poimen.

In other words, sheep from two sources will be united in one flock. Sheep who once were (but no longer are) part of national Israel will be united into a single flock with sheep who were never part of national Israel. They will be one flock because they follow one shepherd. Jesus’ parable in John 10 parallels Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:11‐22. Before the death and resurrection of Christ, humanity was twofold: Jewish humanity and Gentile humanity. These two were enemies, but the ground of their enmity was obliterated through the cross. Consequently, God has taken some who were Jewish and some who were Gentile, and He has united them into a single new humanity. This new humanity is also the one body, whose members have access to God by one Spirit. The new humanity defines the fundamental unity among Christians, providing the basis for their actual treatment of one another.

The same applications can be drawn from the parable of the flock and the fold. True Christian unity is never the unity of the fold. It never arises from external constraint or manipulation. Christians, like sheep, can be herded into proximity with one another. Without an inner attraction, however, proximity will only provide an occasion to put their disunity on display. True unity can never be contrived. We can never get it by paying attention to unity. It never comes to those who aim for it directly. Ironically, a strong focus upon unity often proves to be a distraction from the very things that would produce unity.

Genuine unity is a byproduct. The sheep are one flock, not because they are paying attention to themselves or willing themselves to be a flock, but because they are paying attention to the shepherd. A sheep that draws near to the shepherd will also draw near to all the other sheep that are also following the shepherd. These sheep will discover a unity that they never planned and for which they never aimed.

Do you want greater unity? You will never get it by talking about unity. If you want unity, talk about Christ and follow Him. If enough of us do that together, we shall realize a unity that originates in no other way.

Veni, Creator Spiritus

John Dryden (1631‐1700)

Creator Spirit, by whose aid
The world’s foundations first were laid,
Come, visit ev’ry pious mind;
Come, pour thy joys on human kind;
From sin, and sorrow set us free;
And make thy temples worthy Thee.

O, Source of uncreated Light,
The Father’s promis’d Paraclete!
Thrice Holy Fount, thrice Holy Fire,
Our hearts with heav’nly love inspire;
Come, and thy Sacred Unction bring
To sanctify us, while we sing!

Plenteous of grace, descend from high,
Rich in thy sev’n‐fold energy!
Thou strength of his Almighty Hand,
Whose pow’r does heav’n and earth command:
Proceeding Spirit, our Defence,
Who do’st the gift of tongues dispence,
And crown’st thy gift with eloquence!

Refine and purge our earthly parts;
But, oh, inflame and fire our hearts!
Our frailties help, our vice control;
Submit the senses to the soul;
And when rebellious they are grown,
Then, lay thy hand, and hold ‘em down.

Chase from our minds th’ Infernal Foe;
And peace, the fruit of love, bestow;
And, lest our feet should step astray,
Protect, and guide us in the way.

Make us Eternal Truths receive,
And practise, all that we believe:
Give us thy self, that we may see
The Father and the Son, by thee.

Immortal honour, endless fame,
Attend th’ Almighty Father’s name:
The Saviour Son be glorified,
Who for lost Man’s redemption died:
And equal adoration be,
Eternal Paraclete, to thee.

—————-

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of Central’s professors, students, or alumni necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses. In The Nick of Time is also archived here.

Discuss this article.

Preserving the Bond of Peace

By Dr. Sam Horn

Standing Fast for Unity—Philippians 4:2-3

Unity and harmony were important themes to the Apostle Paul. He addressed these themes throughout the New Testament in passages such as Romans 12:4-5, 14-15; 1 Corinthians 10, 12; and Ephesians 4:4. Perhaps one of the clearest cases where Paul’s concern for unity and harmony is expressed is found in Philippians 4:2-3 where he addressed two women who were at odds with each other. Although Paul does not reveal the cause or nature of their division, it is obvious their conflict was well-known to the assembly and had escalated to the point that public confrontation was needed.

Conflict among believers is not new to the body of Christ. It divided believers in Paul’s day even as it does in ours. Though never pleasant, conflict is at times a necessary part of standing for truth. For this very reason, Jude instructed believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3). There are times, however, when conflict is divisive and destructive. Conflict is at times a part of serving Christ, particularly when truth or doctrine is at stake; however, it is one thing to contend for truth but quite another to be contentious when truth is not at stake. This passage demonstrates how Paul addressed one such needless conflict and reveals several biblical principles to aid modern-day believers to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Contextual Implications

In Philippians, Paul unfolds three primary concerns for these believers who labor in the Gospel. First, that they contend earnestly for the faith of the Gospel (1:27). Second, that they be steadfast in the face of opposition (3:1-4:1). Finally, that they maintain unity in the Spirit by adopting the “mind of Christ” (2:1-16). Almost everything in this letter can be tied to at least one of these primary concerns. If the Philippians are to effectively contend for the Gospel, they must stand firm against the opposition, and this standing mandates a unity of heart and soul. When seen in the light of the three primary concerns mentioned above, the conflict between these two women actually constitutes a major threat to the work of the Gospel and, as such, merits Paul’s direct and decisive intervention.

Ancient Observations

This brief passage contains at least eight important observations about the conflict addressed by Paul.

First, the conflict is left general rather than specific in order to point out the reality of the conflict rather than focus on its particulars. Rather than getting lost or sidetracked in discussions about the history and justification of the conflict (who was right and who was wrong), Paul wanted the reader to understand the danger of the conflict and to focus on resolving such conflicts when they arise.

Second, it is clear from this passage that the conflict was between two specific individual believers that Paul names. The conflict was very real and very personal. Two specific people had allowed a conflict to come between them and thereby endangered the Gospel mission at Philippi.

Third, those involved in the conflict had at one time been a source of great joy and hope for the Apostle (1:1). Paul addresses them as “dearly beloved” twice in this passage. He is not writing to strangers from a distant and uninvolved perspective. These were dear friends who had been and continued to be a source of great joy. Now, two of them had become the source of deep discomfort and distress. Paul was grieved, and rather than suffer his grief in distant silence, he called for a resolution to the conflict.

Fourth, these women were at one time united in a common cause for the Gospel. Apparently, in the past these women had been praised for their participation in laboring for the Gospel of Christ. Now, they were singled out for their division and conflict with each other.

Fifth, these women had become publicly divided over a nonessential matter. Although Paul does not give any particular details as to the nature of the conflict, it is noteworthy that Paul does not mention any major doctrinal problem in association with these two women as he did when he wrote to the Galatians, Corinthians, or the Romans. Rather than revealing the particulars of the problem, Paul urged the women to settle the matter so the greater issue, their relationship, could be preserved. For Paul, believers were not to stand on personal issues and opinions at the expense of Christian harmony and unity.

Sixth, Paul addressed his instruction for reconciliation to both women individually. Both women bore fault for the breach; both must bear responsibility for the restoration. It is striking that Paul made no real effort to determine who was at fault or who needed to make the first move toward reconciliation. It is clear that Paul considered the need to reconcile as a mutual responsibility. As they had once labored together in the work of the Gospel, Paul entreats these two sisters to labor together in the work of reconciliation.

Seventh, in this case reconciliation demanded the intervention of a spiritual leader. Apparently, the conflict between the two women had degenerated to the point that involvement of a third party was necessary. Paul’s request was most likely made to the pastor or one of the spiritual leaders over the church at Philippi. While it is impossible to be dogmatic on this point, Paul’s understanding of the role of the spiritual leader in a church would certainly include the responsibility to preserve the bond of peace among believers under his charge.

Finally, it is interesting that the outcome of this situation is not recorded for us. The reasons are obvious. When this letter arrived at Philippi, the problem was still a present reality. We have no way of knowing what the results were as there is no other mention of these women anywhere else in the New Testament, and there is no further correspondence to the church at Philippi. All the reader can conclude is that God wanted us to focus on the vital importance of resolving such breaches of unity rather than providing a specific methodology for doing so.

Modern Applications

There are at least six important applications that these observations teach us. First, this kind of conflict between believers is a threat to the effectiveness of the Gospel. In such cases, believers have an obligation to deal with the conflict rather than to adopt a “live and let live” mindset.

Second, success and mutual labor in the ministry are no guarantees for future harmony and mutual unity. No amount of past labor and ministry together can eliminate the need to actively and vigilantly preserve the bond of peace in personal relationships. Relationships between believers must be nurtured and developed through an active commitment to living out the agape principles in 1 Corinthians 13.

Third, when division comes between believers and such division is not over a doctrinal or ethical violation, then mutual reconciliation is mandated. Believers do not have the option to live in the supposed comfort of unresolved personal conflict at the expense of the harmony of the body and the ministry of the Gospel.

Fourth, at times believers may be unable or unwilling to resolve the conflict between themselves on their own. At such times, a public call for reconciliation is warranted, and the involvement of a third party, such as an objective spiritual leader, may be helpful or needed.

Fifth, the context of this letter reveals that believers must esteem the cause of the Gospel higher than any personal preference or right they have. Rather than causing conflict with another believer over a nonessential matter, believers should give careful consideration to how their actions affect the ministry of the Gospel. Personal differences or slights must be set aside for the greater cause of spiritual unity among believers who are standing together for truth. Let there be no question about Paul’s willingness to rebuke or even separate from a believer who is in doctrinal or ethical violation of truth. One has but to recall his stinging rebuke to Peter at Galatia or his instruction to the Corinthians to deliver the sinning brother over to Satan and avoid even eating with him to understand that Paul is not advocating unity at the expense of truth. Rather, he is urging unity at the expense of personal preferences or slights. It has become fashionable to justify our division over personal hurts or slights by arguing that we are “standing for spiritual truth.” While there are legitimate grounds for division over truth, it is imperative that truth be the real ground for division rather than just the pretext.

Finally, this passage reveals that preserving the bond of peace among believers can be a laborious process. It must have been difficult for Paul to write these verses. From the tender terminology used to address them, it is clear that Paul does not desire to embarrass or hurt these former co-workers. It must have been very difficult for these women to have received Paul’s rebuke and appeal in this matter. However, as laborious and difficult as it may have been, Paul was willing to engage in the process so that the bond of peace could be preserved and, in so doing, leave for us an example to follow.

Conclusion and Application

Modern fundamentalists stand behind a heritage of older saints who stood together in the battle for truth and the labor of the Gospel. While they may have differed in many areas of personal conviction or preference, they stood shoulder to shoulder in the harvest field for Christ and on the battle field for truth.

Today, however, that spirit of co-laboring stands threatened by believers who stand together on doctrinal truth but contentiously divide over matters of personal preference or specific applications of how certain biblical principles in nonessential areas are to be fleshed out in daily life. It is one thing to differ from another fundamental believer in these areas; it is quite another to do so contentiously. Modern Fundamentalism has been divided over issues that were never considered points of contention, tests of fellowship, or indicators of orthodoxy by past fundamentalists. Modern fundamentalists are divided over such things as educational philosophy, homeschooling, personal dress standards, the King James Version, courtship and dating, acceptable entertainment, and a host of other issues. While believers are certainly within their rights to have strong views and positions on each of these issues and to teach these view to others, Fundamentalism has never made similar issues of past days points of fellowship or tests of orthodoxy.

The right kind of discussion between godly men who hold strong but differing positions on these issues promotes a healthy environment for debate, biblical study of the issues, and a responsible and careful exegesis of relevant biblical material. However, much of what is going on within our movement is far from healthy; it is divisive and contentious and is far removed from the spirit and history of traditional Fundamentalism. It is quite possible that if Paul were writing a letter to the churches of American Fundamentalism, and if it were read publicly for all to hear, we would hear the tender entreaty of the Apostle personalized to our situations. “I beseech ______________, and beseech ______________, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.” One does not write an article of this nature without some measure of trepidation that some will misunderstand the true intentions and motives of the author. Whenever one speaks in this fashion on unity, there is the risk that others will wonder about his commitment to truth and separation. Biblical separation, however, does not preclude biblical unity; it presupposes and enhances it. It is precisely a concern for truth that ought to motivate believers to ardently guard the bond of peace and to preserve biblical unity among each other. Contentions, however, do occur. In such cases, passages like this serve to encourage estranged believers to begin the process of reconciliation. No one desires to see truth sacrificed in the name of unity. Unity achieved in such fashion is not genuine unity; however, although the Bible does not allow believers to sacrifice truth for unity, it does place a high value on biblical unity.

Furthermore, the New Testament exhorts believers to preserve the bond of peace and to live peaceably with one another as they strive to walk worthy of their calling. Often fundamentalists of past years were called upon to stand firm for truth and did so willingly, leaving us a heritage of truth. In our day, in addition to standing for truth, there is a call to stand for the right kind of unity. Our response to this call will determine the heritage we leave for the next generation of fundamentalists.

———–

^{Dr. Sam Horn is pastor/teacher at Brookside Baptist Church (Brookfield, WI). He received a B.A. in Bible, M.A. in Bible, and Ph.D. in New Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC). In 1996, Dr. Horn joined the administration of Northland Baptist Bible College (Dunbar, WI) as vice president for academic affairs. In 2000, he assumed the position of executive vice president. While at BJU, he served as faculty member and director of extended education. He is an experienced pastor, conference speaker, and board member of several Christian organizations. He and his wife, Beth, have two children.}

Unity Across Denominational Lines

By Phillip Johnson

Here's a fact many miss: To a very large degree, the unity Christ prayed for does exist among genuine believers, and it is a unity that transcends denominational lines. All Christians are "in Christ"; therefore they are all one with the Father, and one with each other as well. Notice carefully what Christ says in Jn. 17 verses 22-23: "[I pray] that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity." The basis of that unity is not a denominational affiliation; it is our position in Christ. Faithful evangelical Protestants believe God is answering that prayer of Christ even now. We enjoy an amazing degree of unity with one another, despite our denominational distinctions. In other words, the kind of spiritual unity Christ prayed for does exist in the true body of Christ worldwide despite denominational barriers. Our Lord's prayer for His church has not gone unanswered. Christ's true church is not confined to a single congregation, denomination, or earthly organization. The church is composed of all true believers in Christ, regardless of denominational affiliation or membership in any earthly assembly. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, "The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (25.1). When the Confession speaks of the church as "invisible," it does not mean the church is inconspicuous or utterly hidden from view. It means that its precise boundaries cannot be detected through human perception. There are people who claim to be, and appear to be, part of the body, but they are not. Others, perhaps unknown to us, are true believers and members of the body. The exact boundaries of the true church are not always easy to discern. But nonetheless genuine believers are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28)—united with Him, and therefore united with one another. "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:12-13). During His earthly ministry, Christ told the disciples: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16). The "one shepherd" is Christ himself, not an earthly vicar. And the "one flock" is also a spiritual reality even now, with believing Jews and Gentiles united in one new body, and the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile having been broken down (Eph. 2:14-16). The perfect manifestation of that unity awaits fulfillment in a future time, when "we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13). In the meantime, to settle for the superficial unity imposed by a monstrous worldwide ecclesiastical hierarchy would be a serious mistake. The unity Christ prayed for has always existed in the true body of Christ. It is an organic, not an organizational unity. It is a spiritual, not a corporeal unity. And it is not a unity without diversity. (If He had wanted unity with no diversity, He would not have gifted us with different spiritual gifts.) But the kind of unity Christ prays for is a unity in spite of our great diversity. The truth is that on the vital issues there is far more agreement among Protestants than Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church leaders would like to admit. All evangelical Protestants are in agreement on the doctrine of justification by faith (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura). Proof that unity is the rule among believers despite their denominational differences can be seen in a survey of the denominational backgrounds of the men who have contributed to this book. We may not always agree on every point and every particular of secondary doctrinal questions. But on the essential gospel truths we are in full agreement. And our unity in Christ is unbroken by denominational lines between us. We embrace one another with sincere love as members of the one body of Christ. We are one in Christ. The evangelical school where I studied is an interdenominational Bible institute. My professors were Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Independents. Students came from an incredibly diverse array of Protestant denominations. We prayed together, studied together, and did evangelistic work together. Our denominational differences were no barrier to our unity in Christ. The church I'm a member of now is a non-denominational church. Our members come from backgrounds as varied as Baptist, Brethren, and Presbyterian congregations. Our pastor is regularly asked to speak in all kinds of denominational settings. In recent years he has spoken in Anglican churches, Baptist conventions, Presbyterian conferences, and charismatic congregations. We do enjoy a tremendous unity with all those who truly love Christ and are faithful to his word—regardless of our denominational differences. The limits on this trans-denominational unity are set by Scripture itself. We cannot welcome into our circle of fellowship people who deny truths that are essential to the gospel (2 John 7-11); and we cannot embrace people who affirm a gospel Scripture condemns (Gal. 1:18-19). The gospel and all truths essential to it are therefore nonnegotiable points of doctrine, and unity on these matters is a prerequisite to any other kind of unity. But there's nothing inherently sinful with holding denominational convictions on secondary issues. Denominations in and of themselves are not necessarily an obstacle to true Christian unity, and Protestants should not be bullied into conceding otherwise. Of course, when differences on secondary issues are magnified and used to promote strife and hostility between brothers and sisters in Christ, that is sectarianism. It's the very attitude Paul condemned in Corinth when some of the believers there were dividing in groups loyal to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, and refusing fellowship to members of the competing groups. Such sectarianism is certainly sinfully divisive. But that is not a necessary result of denominationalism. And those of us with broad denominational associations and close friendships in Christ across denominational boundaries are living proof of that. There is room for brethren to disagree within the bonds of unity, and sometimes those disagreements can be sharp (cf. Acts 15:36-39). In fact, it is unlikely that there are any two Christians anywhere who will agree completely on the meaning of every passage of Scripture. Unity does not mean that we must agree up front on every point of truth. But unity certainly does not mean that we should ignore the issue of truth altogether and settle for a superficial organizational unity.