UNITY IN THE CHURCH

This is a rather broad subject that I do not pretend to be an expert on. However, in my lifetime I have personally experienced the two extremes of the spectrum within the church. While in graduate school in the 1960's, I briefly took part in some discussions with representatives from a “sister” denomination in which we attempted to draft a position paper on some subject or other that would then be forwarded to another committee for eventual incorporation into a grand statement to be ratified by all the board members of the Ecumenical Movement, which was quite active at the time.

It soon became evident that the only way we could proceed was to water down our statement of belief to the point where practically any religion on earth could agree to it. Somewhat the same thing happened when the Moral Majority cast its net so broadly that it incorporated Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Mormon groups. It not only was unsuccessful in meeting its political goals, but tended to project an image to the outside world that said we were all really one common religion.

Today, it is probably easier to find examples of the opposite extreme of thinking. I come from a non-credal church tradition which loved to quote “Unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials.” I found out later that the saying originally added “and in all things love.” That last part wasn't really part and parcel of our tradition's belief. I later started attending churches that had somewhat loose doctrinal statements that were easy to adhere to since they consisted of those things which really define what it means to be a Christian.

The most detailed “creed” I ran into (or ran up against) was actually in a Bible church. If I recall rightly, they had a list of about twenty doctrinal statements that one needed to agree to if you wanted to join the church. Again, most of these were quite easy for me to sign my name to, except for two of them. It wasn't that I considered these two statements to necessarily be in error; I was just not convinced that either of them was taught in the Bible to any sure degree of certainty. And at least one of them was what I definitely considered to be a tertiary issue that had no place in a document used to determine one's degree of fellowship in a congregation.

Because I told the elders that I couldn't in good conscience sign the statement, I was not allowed to become a member. However, to give them credit, the elders allowed me to lead an adult Sunday school class there for years after I agreed not to teach on those two subjects. I felt that they had every right to insist on that stipulation. However, it later became obvious that the congregation's idea of unity of spirit was really a uniformity of belief on a number of other subjects, mostly political views. One Sunday morning after church service, I walked out to the parking lot and saw that flyers had been put on the windshields of all the cars. I have no idea who put them there, but I am sure that whoever was responsible had a good idea that they would be well received by the members of the congregation. The flyer was urging people to vote for certain candidates who shared our “core biblical values.” One of those core values was removal of any restrictions to gun ownership. I am still looking for the proof text behind that one.

It is with the above background in mind that I recently read the statement forwarded to me from a blog reader. It included 34 of his beliefs (with extensive references) as well as 178 fallacies of the modern apostate church. One of his statements caught my eye since it dealt with the subject at hand. It read as follows: “It's foolish and sinful to divide Biblical truths into “essentials” and “non-essentials” (minors, negotiables, secondary issues). All are essential. False beliefs cause disunity or false unity, and must not be tolerated, appreciated, or argued over, but rather discerned, criticized, and rejected.” As proof of this contention he appended 22 biblical passages.

In a way, I am in agreement with him as long as he is truly talking about “Biblical truth.” But the practical problems abound in discerning what is truly taught unambiguously in the Bible and what is not, and in deciding who is qualified to make that determination. In addition, the overall tone of that statement happened to strike me the wrong way, whether or not it was intended by the author. It appeared to be unduly dogmatic, unloving, and destined to lead to even more disunity and division within the body. The whole history of denominations in the United States, for example, shows that the stronger a church leadership insists on a long laundry list of “biblical” beliefs, the sooner they begin to fragment into smaller denominations over issues that any reasonable person would agree are quite minor. This is no exaggeration since there are even very small denominations such as the Plymouth Brethren, to give one example, that continued to split into ever smaller groups over nitty-gritty details regarding the Last Days. Even the individual congregations within my own non-denominational background would only associate with other congregations whose pastors came from the same agreed list of approved Bible colleges.

I was curious to examine the 22 proof texts he offered, excluding two of them that dealt with very specific issues and didn't directly address the issue of essentials in the church. And in keeping with the spirit of my correspondent's words, I am going to feel free to “discern, criticize and reject” his interpretation of these passages.

Matthew 5:18-22 Jesus says that not one letter of the law will pass away until all has been fulfilled. The interpretative question here arises with the last phrase. Does it refer to the fulfillment of all prophecy when a New Heaven and New Earth is set up? Or does it refer to Jesus' atoning death on the cross that freed us from the law and its penalty? I tend to go with the second interpretation. Otherwise, the whole Judaizer controversy discussed in Galatians would not have arisen since all believers would have to continue the practice of circumcision.

Matthew 15:19b-20a These particular verses mention a number of the Ten Commandments approvingly. But they pointedly leave out the surrounding verses which stress heart issues and consign external matters such as hand washing and dietary restrictions to a “non-essential status,” in contrast to my correspondent's contention.

John 10:35b This is the tail end of the story in which Jesus is arguing with his critics over an issue. Jesus quotes from the Psalms to prove his point and concludes by saying, “and the scripture cannot be annulled.” However, the phrase “the scripture” may not have the same meaning as “all scripture” or “the scriptures”, which occur elsewhere in the NT. It may just apply to this particular scripture. In addition, it should be noted that although the NT writers very frequently quote from the OT in an authoritative way, they almost always use it with a meaning or application that differs somewhat from the original context. John 10:34 is a prime example of this.

So unless we actually have the NT interpretation given to us, there is some freedom in deciding exactly how to apply OT teachings and examples to today. For example, the same correspondent whom I have been quoting elsewhere gave his opinion that the Bible condones polygamy, although it may not be the ideal pattern of marriage. This belief has to have been derived from the OT example of the patriarchs and kings of Israel. I would guarantee you that there are very few churches today, even within the Mormon tradition, who would put up with that contention. And they would marshal some powerful NT evidence to back up their stance.

Acts 2:42 “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” I am not quite sure how this bears on the subject at hand other than possibly show that we need to stick to the apostles' teaching. I am certainly in agreement with that; however, this verse opens a whole host of possible areas of discussion that might be considered in the area of “non-essentials.” Thus, who is to be admitted into that fellowship and who is to be excluded; does the breaking of bread refer to communion or just a fellowship meal, and does the bread need to be unleavened; exactly what prayers are acceptable, do they have to come from an accepted liturgy approved by a larger church body, and who is allowed to to speak these prayers, is speaking in tongues acceptable, and are the prayers even to be spoken out loud at all?

Acts 17:29-30 This is part of Paul's speech to the Athenians teaching them against idol worship. I am not sure what this has to say about all biblical beliefs being essential, but I would wholeheartedly agree that this is an essential belief. But even here there are disagreements as to whether money, prestige, fame, or family, for example, would qualify as idols that can be worshiped.

Romans 14:1-14 This passage concerns those weak in the faith who abstain from certain foods or drink. Paul says not to argue with them concerning their beliefs, but perhaps abstain yourself out of love in order to promote peace and mutual uplifting. This teaching seems to be totally contrary to what my correspondent is trying to prove. He would apparently say not to tolerate such false beliefs but criticize and reject them instead.

I Corinthians 1:10 Paul tells those in the church to be in agreement and have no divisions among themselves and “be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” But the context of chapters 1-3 makes it obvious what he is talking about. For example, in verse 12 he clarifies himself: “What I mean is that...” He then hammers at the problem at hand; they are totally divided into several camps according to the individual leaders they claim for themselves. The issue is not that those particular leaders are teaching heresy (in fact one of them is Christ Himself), but that the members of the congregation are setting themselves up under their individual banners as being somehow superior to the others. This is certainly no minor issue and it is tearing the church apart. Verse 10 then doesn't at all explain how detailed our agreement on issues should extend.

Ephesian 4:25 “So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors...” The whole tenor of this chapter is speaking the truth in love (v. 15) and it starts and concludes with an emphasis on being kind and gentle with one another. That implies that there are some items of disagreement among them, but rather than Paul laying down the law and demanding uniformity at all costs, he cautions gentleness.

I don't really know how my correspondent approached his discussions at church regarding issues he disagreed with, or whether his gentle words of truth were not received well. I do know, however, that the sole elder at our very small church back in upstate New York had very definite opinions on a number of issues which he felt were Biblically based. One of them had to do with which hymns in our hymnal were acceptable to sing. If my wife, who was the pianist, chose a hymn that he didn't agree with, he would pointedly keep his mouth shut as we sang it on Sunday morning. At least he didn't force the others in the congregation to do the same, but we soon learned which songs to steer away from. So far so good.

Things heated up, however, when a small group in the congregation began meeting in people's houses a few times a month to sing the good old-fashioned hymns they enjoyed around a piano. Our elder found out about it and hit the roof. He approached me, since I was the church chairman, and told me in no uncertain terms that I had to stop them immediately. I forget what logic he used to try to convince me (unsuccessfully) to agree, but he ended up by saying, “It's the truth!” My response was that it was one thing to speak the truth and another to speak the truth in love. He replied, “I don't see the difference at all!”

Ephesians 5:11-14 I am not sure, but I believe that this proof text was added to the list because of the statement, taken very much out of context, saying that “everything exposed by the light becomes visible.” However, this does not at all refer to openly discussing issues of disagreement, but to the evil deeds some people do in the darkness.

Philippians 2:1-2b Here Paul urges the church to be of one spirit and mind. But does that mean that everyone in the church needs to be in exact agreement over a long list of specific beliefs and practices? Bible scholars would almost uniformly reject that idea. For example, Melick says that this refers to a oneness in love and in what they all value. Hughes says it refers to a unified purpose and goal in life. And Muller says it consists of all having love for God, Christ and one another as well as being all driven by one cause, the cause of Christ.

Colossians 1:28 “It is he [Christ] whom we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone in all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ.” This is similar to Paul's statement elsewhere that wherever he went, he preached only Christ, and him crucified. The final goal of his teaching here was not to outline exactly how every one should live and all the doctrines they needed to believe in. It was simply to ground them firmly in the truth of Christ.

Colossians 3:9 “Do not lie to one another” is of the same piece as the previous verse condemning other sins of the mouth such as slander and abusive language.” It certainly does not refer to your duty to set other people straight when you think you have knowledge that is superior to theirs.

I Timothy 6:3-7 Those who disagree “with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness” are condemned by Paul as being conceited and understanding nothing. This certainly does not refer to all that is taught in the OT, for example, or to issues that are not clearly dealt with in the Bible at all, such as the use or non-use of musical instruments to accompany worship services, to just cite one example.

II Timothy 2:15, 23-26 This whole passage is an admonition to Timothy to “rightly explain the word of truth,” avoid the heretical teachings of some, and correct them with gentleness. Notice that even in this instance where there are actual heresies being taught, they are to be corrected in a spirit of gentleness. Again, it says nothing regarding non-heretical issues.

II Timothy 3:16-17 This is the well known passage beginning “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, reproof, etc.” Although in its context it probably referred to the OT only, the concept can validly be extended to NT teachings as well. Besides the fact that this passage does not really address the issue of essentials and non-essentials, it also brings up the question as to who is qualified to do the teaching and reproving. These words were addressed specifically to Timothy who has been given his pastoral charge directly from Paul. And Paul points out in the previous verse why Timothy is equipped to do this duty – he was raised from his youth on the Bible. Does this mean that only longtime believers are equipped to do the teaching in the church? Some would argue that it means exactly that, others feel that the teacher/preacher should have reached a ripe age full of experience before he is really capable, and still others reserve those duties to those have attended a valid Bible college or university and been officially ordained.

In addition, look at the surrounding verses for the intended context. II Timothy 3:15 prefaces this saying by making it clear that the purpose of the instruction is to bring people to salvation. And then v. 18 mentions the other reason: equipping the members of the congregation to do good works. One could even argue from these two points of emphasis that anything that doesn't (a) directly contribute to the cause of evangelism or (b) aid in promoting the ethical demands of Christianity is irrelevant and falls into the category of non-essentials. I would not go quite that far myself, but it certainly should put into better perspective the problem of being obsessed with the minutia of other doctrinal issues or the relative appropriateness of certain modes of worship.

II Timothy 4:2-5 “Proclaim the message...with the utmost patience in teaching.” This passage predicts that some will wander from the truth and follow teachers of their own choosing. This is the sad reality we can see all around us in the church. But again, there is no definition of what the “truth” in this context means. Is it just freedom from heresy or does it go deeper than that? This passage again brings up the important question as to who is a qualified teacher of the truth. If we go from one congregation and denomination to the next looking for an acceptable spiritual leader who agrees exactly with what we already believe, how is that any different than “following teachers of their own choosing?”

II Peter 3:14-18 can be paraphrased as: “Don't be carried away by those who twist the scriptures either purposely or ignorantly.” That is very sound advice, but unfortunately those who pervert the meaning of the Bible's teachings knowingly will continue doing so since it is usually to their personal benefit to do so, and they generally have built up a loyal following due to the force of their personality that will not be swayed by teachings to the contrary. If the errors are enshrined in a denomination's longtime traditions, it is equally unlikely that one will have any success in pointing out their misconceptions.

On the other hand, those in the congregation who misinterpret a biblical passage out of sheer ignorance can be gently corrected and will usually respond well to such correction. The question, again, remains as to which of the many different possible understandings of the thousands of different passages in the Bible is completely free from error and of enough importance that it even need to be unambiguously labeled as the only truth worth following.

I John 2:21b “You know that no lie comes from the truth.” In the very next verse, John explains that he is specifically talking about those who deny the Father and Son. This does not address the subject at hand except to point to at least one very important doctrinal truth, perhaps the important doctrinal truth.

II John 9-11 warns the reader not to receive into your house anyone who goes beyond the teachings of Christ. This refers to itinerant preachers or prophets who request lodging. One could argue from this passage that only the unambiguous teachings of Christ found in the Bible are to be followed and that anything beyond this proceeds from sin. But I doubt that is what my correspondent had in mind.

Notably missing from his list of proof texts are two that seem to be much more germane to the subject at hand than any of those above:

I Corinthians 8 goes into great detail regarding an issue in the church which was splintering them into different factions. Some saw no problem in eating meat offered to idols while others abstained thinking that it would make them partakers in idol worship. In verses 8-9, Paul says that they have liberty to do either, but neither course of action will necessarily bring them any closer to God.

Colossians 2:16-23 says, “Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on...” What follows is a catalog of practices such as observing certain holy days, self-abasement such as fasting, worship of angels, and beliefs that come from visions. These are obviously just representative examples of the minutia of required beliefs and practices coming mainly out of some believers' Jewish past. Paul's problem with these is that they are “only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” In other words, the main problem with those who insist on continuing these traditions, some of which are actually in the OT, is that they detract from the person to whom they all were intended to point. This point is made in a slightly different way in both verses 17 and 19. Paul continues in verses 20-23 to dismiss this whole slew of regulations which seem to promote piety, but in fact do not.

Of course, it is possible to feel that the laundry list in Colossians 2 only includes perversions of OT teachings. However, it is not as easy to dismiss the Judaizer conflict over the question of circumcision and whether it should be continued by all Christians since this is one of the main practices of the OT that marked the people of God. This issue and the related one involving the food regulations in Leviticus were definitively settled and not only form the subject of several chapters of Acts, but form practically the sole subject of Galatians (a key book that is notably missing in the citations above).

In summary, I used to feel that there was only one way to understand a Bible passage – at its face value – and that anyone who had a different understanding was being purposely obtuse. All I would have to do is simply point out the error of other's ways, and they would agree with me. After concentrating on the whole subject of hermeneutics for decades now, I realize that Bible interpretation is not as simple as just reading a passage and believing it. One can be horribly misled in this manner or at least can come to the incorrect assumption that your own understanding is the only one possible.  I hope that those of you who might peruse through my 1,000+ posts will soon realize that it takes a lot of discernment, practice, and specialized knowledge to begin to arrive at the "definitive" understand of what may appear to be quite simple passages in Scripture. That is why I usually like to offer the analyses of more than one expert in the field, rather than just subject you to my opinion only.