Unity or Uniformity?

[jimmyjimmy]

Many Christians on CF have expressed some degree of disappointment that not all Christians walk in lockstep doctrinally. Some have gone so far as to say that denominations are "of men", or even "of the devil".

Here's my question: Is Christian unity the same thing as uniformity?

 

[JCFantasy23]

Many Christians on CF have expressed some degree of disappointment that not all Christians walk in lockstep doctrinally. Some have gone so far as to say that denominations are "of men", or even "of the devil".

Here's my question: Does Christian unity mean uniformity?

Christians can still come together despite doctrinal differences. We clearly love to argue and divide amongst ourselves, but what unites us is stronger than how we're divided.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with the implications of the OP, but there are significant barriers that I don’t know how to deal with. Among them:

* The most visible sign of unity is communion. But many denominations restrict that to people whose theology agrees with theirs.

* Many people feel strongly that theological differences are so important that unity isn’t possible.

Unity turns out to be a lot easier for people from a liberal perspective than a conservative one. Liberal Christians tend to see traditional theological language as reflecting how people in one time and place described their faith. That makes it easier to accept others with whom we may disagree as still legitimate Christians and worth cooperation.

But conservative ones often feel that very specific credal and dogmatic language is essential to the Gospel. I have been called apostate by members of your church, and I believe that view is still common among people with whom you regularly interact here. This isn’t just prejudice. It’s a considered evaluation of the importance of certain doctrines and practices to Christianity. If one group doesn’t consider the other Christian, it’s very hard for any kind of unity to exist.

There are exceptions. A few years ago a group of moderately conservative Protestants and Catholics came out with the joint statement, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. It recognized everyone as Christians, and encouraged cooperation in projects where there weren’t doctrinal barriers. But ECT was quite controversial. Many evangelicals felt it was a sell-out. After all, several denominations have confessions that remain authoritative that call the Pope the anti-Christ. Even if they don’t take that position, they may well feel that certain central Catholic doctrines fatally compromise the Gospel.

There have been improvements. Within what I consider the three major families (Catholic/Orthodox, liberal Protestant and conservative Protestant) there’s been a lot of progress. The National Association of Evangelicals shows a reasonable degree of agreement and cooperation across a variety of conservative Protestants. Liberal Protestants have been developing full communion agreements, and certainly are willing to work together.

However there are still big problems across the liberal / conservative divide. Issues related to sexual identity and practice are actually making things worse than they were 20 years ago. It’s not just “I think you’re making a big mistake but you’re still my brother in Christ.” It’s “anyone who says that isn’t a Christian.”

I think to have any real unity we have to be close enough that we think both parties teach the Gospel, even if not perfectly.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The most visible sign of unity is communion. But many denominations restrict that to people whose theology agrees with theirs.

The bar needs to be set very low for who we call a Christian and welcome to the Lord's table.

Many people feel strongly that theological differences are so important that unity isn’t possible.

True, but I believe that part of that is the misunderstanding that we don't need to have identical theology in order to be united.

Unity turns out to be a lot easier for people from a liberal perspective than a conservative one. Liberal Christians tend to see traditional theological language as reflecting how people in one time and place described their faith. That makes it easier to accept others with whom we may disagree as still legitimate Christians and worth cooperation.

I would agree that unity is easier from liberal to liberal, but not liberal to conservative, as far as I have seen.

But conservative ones often feel that very specific credal and dogmatic language is essential to the Gospel.

Yes. We believe that doctrine matters, but to some, doctrine matters more than people. Not good.

But ECT was quite controversial. Many evangelicals felt it was a sell-out.

I am opposed to it strictly for gospel reasons. Justification is the issue. The old faith vs works thing. . .

However there are still big problems across the liberal / conservative divide. Issues related to sexual identity and practice are actually making things worse than they were 20 years ago. It’s not just “I think you’re making a big mistake but you’re still my brother in Christ.” It’s “anyone who says that isn’t a Christian.”

I didn't really have liberals or conservatives in mind when I started this thread. That divide is large and getting larger, but the western world as a whole as far more liberal than it was 50 years ago. When J. Gresham Machen wrote Christianity & Liberalism (which I think is a must-read for any thinking Christian) the divide was actually greater than it is today. Liberals are more liberal than they were 50 years ago, but conservatives are more liberal as well.

I consider myself very conservative, and I do believe that much of the mainline church is apostate, but I also believe that much of evangelicalism is also so far off base as to say the same for it. On top of that, there are a few, not many, very conservative denominations which are not Christian in practice either.

What all of these groups have lost is the gospel, and the only flag that Christians have to unite under is the gospel, not a rainbow-colored homosexual flag; not the stars and stripes and "take back America", not the doctrinal purity that strains out a gnat, but the gospel of Christ. Now. . . if we could only agree on what the gospel is! LOLOLOLOLO

 

[Albion]

Many Christians on CF have expressed some degree of disappointment that not all Christians walk in lockstep doctrinally. Some have gone so far as to say that denominations are "of men", or even "of the devil".

Here's my question: Does Christian unity the same thing as uniformity?

This could be tough. Unity isn't the same as uniformity, I think. It could be argued that we are all united as believers (part of the invisible church, Brian ), but there's obviously no uniformity. On the other hand, saying this seems only to beg the question of how much uniformity is needed. That is to say, there is a unity in Christ that is meaningful but this doesn't mean, cannot mean, that just any belief (other than that Jesus is our Lord and salvation comes through him) is as good as any other or that no differences matter.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This could be tough. Unity isn't the same as uniformity, I think. It could be argued that we are all united as believers (part of the invisible church, Brian ), but there's obviously no uniformity. On the other hand, saying this seems only to beg the question of how much uniformity is needed. That is to say, there is a unity in Christ that is meaningful but this doesn't mean, cannot mean, that just any belief (other than that Jesus is our Lord and salvation comes through him) is as good as any other or that no differences matter.

Surely we are to have a visible unity. It makes no sense to say I have unity with an invisible church or Christian. Leaving Rome out of the question for now, do you think that we are to have unity of some kind with Christians across denominational divides? If so, what's the doctrinal minimum standardize, if any?

Side note: Rolling this over for a bit and thinking about groups which have a great deal of uniformity, and the first thing that comes to my mind is a cult.

 

[Albion]

Surely we are to have a visible unity.

That would depend, I'd say, on what constitutes a visible unity.

It makes no sense to say I have unity with an invisible church or Christian.

Saying THAT doesn't make sense.

Leaving Rome out of the question for now, do you think that we are to have unity of some kind with Christians across denominational divides? If so, what's the doctrinal minimum standardize, if any?

How can we leave Rome out of it and still talk of unity? The RCC is the largest Christian denomination in the world, like it or not.

Side note: Rolling this over for a bit and thinking about groups which have a great deal of uniformity, and the first thing that comes to my mind is a cult.

That's true, BUT it's true only as an internal characteristic. Cults characteristically set themselves apart from all other groups, so that would seem to be the opposite of unity.

 

[hedrick]

I’m nearly 67, so I’ve been around for 50 years. (Yes, I was pretty deeply involved in theology at 17.) There’s actually not that much change. The theology text used for high school Sunday School then could be used today without change. I’d actually use it (surprisingly, it’s still in print) except that you can’t really assign kids to read a textbook in Sunday School today. Even the gay issue was already present then, although not as many in the church were willing to accept it. Most of the key theological differences were already defined in the early 20th Cent in the fights Machen was involved with.

The main change I’ve seen is that starting in the mid 20th Cent liberal Christianity kind of merged with the historical Jesus work. In the late 19th Cent liberals were generally skeptical that one could really know much about Jesus’ teaching. Today we’re not so skeptical, so there’s a stronger NT basis. (Not that 19th Cent Christians ignored Scripture, of course. The major theologians all did extensive exegesis.)

I’ve read Machen. I don’t think his comments apply with any accuracy to the PCUSA. There are certainly people to which they apply, but he intended it as a broader attack than was justified.

I agree that evangelical churches are becoming more liberal though.

I don’t know anyone who thinks the Gospel is acceptance of gays, although I know plenty of people who think that’s an important implication. (I'm part of a congregation that feels very strongly abut this issue. But I don't think I've ever heard a discussion of acceptance of gays from the pulpit. The theology preached is boringly normal.) If you’re interested in the definition of the Gospel, you might like to read N T Wright’s book “How God Became King: the Forgotten Story of the Gospels.” There’s definitely disagreement over what the Gospel is, but the disagreement may not be what you think it is.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How can we leave Rome out of it and still talk of unity? The RCC is the largest Christian denomination in the world, like it or not.

That's a discussion for another time and place.

That would depend, I'd say, on what constitutes a visible unity.

What say you? What was Jesus talking about? What did He mean by it?

 

[Albion]

That's a discussion for another time and place.



What say you? What was Jesus talking about? What did He mean by it?

I believe that he was referring, as he did in other places, to what we call the invisible church; and of course he wanted for us to all be in harmony with each other.

 

[Hieronymus]

Surely we are to have a visible unity.

Why?

It makes no sense to say I have unity with an invisible church or Christian.

Why not?
It's true, i hope?
We meet here invisibly too.

Leaving Rome out of the question for now, do you think that we are to have unity of some kind with Christians across denominational divides? If so, what's the doctrinal minimum standardize, if any?

John 3:16 is the common denominator i.m.o.
Also the written Word (the Bible) having the doctrinal authority would be a good thing to be united in.

Side note: Rolling this over for a bit and thinking about groups which have a great deal of uniformity, and the first thing that comes to my mind is a cult.

Indeed.
I think it's a part of the power of it actually, that you could mistake most Christians for 'normal people'.
"You will know them by their fruits", not by looks.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I believe that he was referring, as he did in other places, to what we call the invisible church; and of course he wanted for us to all be in harmony with each other.

How are you in harmony with the invisible?

Let me ask another question, if I may. If the so called invisible church were to disappear tomorrow (won't be difficult, I imagine) how would that change your life?

 

[Albion]

How are you in harmony with the invisible?

God is invisible. Justice and Love are invisible. I certainly aspire to be in accord with such
invisible or non-corporeal things. Who among us doesn't?

Let me ask another question, if I may. If the so called invisible church were to disappear tomorrow (won't be difficult, I imagine) how would that change your life?

If it's invisible it can't dis-appear, Brian.

But if you mean "What if they ceased to be?," I'd say that this is no different from asking if all that I value and which IS visible were to cease, what would that do to change my life.

 

[hedrick]

How are you in harmony with the invisible?

Let me ask another question, if I may. If the so called invisible church were to disappear tomorrow (won't be difficult, I imagine) how would that change your life?

The invisible Church is all followers of Jesus. It's invisible only in the sense that we don't know its exact membership. (It's a term typically used by Protestants to caution against identifying the body of Christ with any one visible Church.) But the members are all visible, and so are the churches in which they worship. So if the invisible church disappears, either all Christians disappear or they all stop being Christians.

I'm not a great admirer of the term, since it tends to imply that the Church has no visible structure. But the Church is visible. Its members, their activities, and their churches are all visible, and the churches have structures, preaching, and the sacraments, which one hopes are based on the NT. It's just that not all visible members are truly Christian, and a few people who aren't in any visible churches may well turn out to be part of God's people.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

God is invisible. Justice and Love are invisible. I certainly aspire to be in accord with such
invisible or non-corporeal things. Who among us doesn't?


If it's invisible it can't dis-appear, Brian.

But if you mean "What if they ceased to be?," I'd say that this is no different from asking if all that I value and which IS visible were to cease, what would that do to change my life.

You used to directly answer questions at one time. I prefer that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The invisible Church is all followers of Jesus. It's invisible only in the sense that we don't know its exact membership. (It's a term typically used by Protestants to caution against identifying the body of Christ with any one visible Church.) But the members are all visible, and so are the churches in which they worship. So if the invisible church disappears, either all Christians disappear or they all stop being Christians.

I say that there is no such church, so I'm after biblical evidence of it. I have found none.

 

[Albion]

You used to directly answer questions at one time. I prefer that.

I have answered this one 'six ways from Sunday,' Brian.

Now, I suppose, hearing the same question asked once more, but in a slightly different way, I'm forced to be creative or else I'll just be repeating myself.

 

[hedrick]

I say that there is no such church, so I'm after biblical evidence of it. I have found none.

You don't think that the NT refers to the body of Christ? While eclessia often refers to individual congregations, there are places where it seems to refer to all of Christ's people, e.g. Mat 16:18, Act 9:31. I'm not a great fan of calling it invisible, but the term is a technical one meaning that its exact membership isn't known and you can't identify it with any specific denomination.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I have answered this one 'six ways from Sunday,' Brian.

Now, I suppose, hearing the same question asked once more, but in a slightly different way, I'm forced to be creative or else I'll just be repeating myself.

Would your life change if you woke up tomorrow, read your Bible, and realized, like me, that there is no such thing as an "invisible church"?

Yes or no.

 

[hedrick]

Would your life change if you woke up tomorrow, read your Bible, and realized, like me, that there is no such thing as an "invisible church"?

Yes or no.

To answer that question, one has to know what it means. Do you mean that members of Christ's body are now suddenly turned orange, so that the members of the Church are now visible? Or do you just mean that we all agree not to call the whole body of Christ invisible, because it's a weird way to describe the fact that its membership isn't known? There are lots of weird but traditional terms in theology. This doesn't seem any worse than many others.