Gospel Unity

Wise Christians know that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. They have a nose for significance and create a climate of unity around central issues while moderating and directing discussion over secondary issues. They see how seemingly insignificant matters may undercut the central points of the gospel, even though they may appear benign, cultured, or loving. Wise Christians understand that some issues, which may seem fundamental, are actually seeds of division planted by the enemy of our souls.

Mature churches understand Paul’s admonition to “Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9) but also know to “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him” (Titus 3:10).

How can we discern which battles to fight? Is there a way to differentiate between wolves in sheep’s clothing and sheep in wolves’ clothing?

We wrestle with these issues inside a church or denomination. The wrestling may be prolonged or painful, but we do it while maintaining regular fellowship, joining in worship and service. Debated issues may include the leadership roles appropriate for women, the extent of involvement the church should have in compassionate ministries in the community, the age of the earth, or which musical and preaching styles are best in a worship service. It seems to me that we must keep “debate fors” from escalating into “divide fors.” The best leaders keep the unity of the body at the center of our thinking as Paul admonishes us in Ephesians 4:3. These leaders are also able keep the focus on the essentials even when the wrestling is strenuous.

I find that when churches try to maintain unity by silencing the debates or smoothing things over with “nice” words, divisive folk are often empowered. The divisive people continue to promote their wrangling without being called to responsibility by the wisdom of the group.

The ground rules of Acts 15 seem appropriate in resolving these issues in congregations. Paul took the divisive people back to their body in Jerusalem, where everyone spoke for themselves before the whole church. They spoke what they believed and to the issue at hand rather than to the errors of the other group and to irrelevant issues. The whole congregation listened and recognized the wisdom of James as he stood for essentials (justification by faith alone apart from observance of the Mosaic Law) and proposed compromise on secondary issues. They led the group in wise decision-making, rather than making decrees and enforcing decisions by weight of authority. The size of the group of people involved would vary depending on the significance of the debated issue.

These are the kinds of issues addressed in Romans 14-15, the areas of belief and behavior about which there is no law. This is where acceptance is a virtue and legalism a real danger, especially as divisive people latch onto lower-level issues, raising them into foolish controversies (1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4-5; 2 Tim. 2:14-16, 23-26; Tit. 3:9-10).

Paul instructs us to stop judging one another over such issues, to stop holding others in contempt because they differ here. Rather, he directs us to accept each other, urging us, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19).

Note well, this accepting attitude applies only in the non-essentials. Difference in essential matters like what is required for becoming a true Christian “brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them” (Acts 15:2).

How do you discern the differences between these levels of certainty? In my judgment, the discernment revolves around the centrality and clarity the issue takes in Scripture and the significance of the issue for our faith.

Jesus as God incarnate in full humanity, who lived a sinless life, is a “die for.” Scripture is clear that Jesus did not sin. Those who affirm that He sinned in order to establish His full humanity may appear sensitive to human problems, yet, they exclude themselves from gospel orthodoxy when they do.

What did Jesus mean when He cried out, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30) and died? Did He mean He finished the work of propitiating the wrath of God toward elect sinners whom God chose based on His sovereign purposes alone (definite atonement in Calvinism)? Or did He mean He had finished the arduous work of atonement to provide payment for the penalty of sin for all who would receive Him, whom God chose based on His perfect fore knowledge of their choice from all eternity (universal atonement in Arminianism)? These sorts of questions that have to do with different ways of connecting scriptural affirmations are often “divide for” issues.

While some believe that Jesus did not have sinful desires, noting that Jesus was “a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26), others see “made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest” (Heb. 2:17), indicating that He must have wrestled with sinful desires. We would “debate for” this difference, but I would not divide over it though it relates to the bigger question of the balance of Jesus’ divinity and humanity.

Did Jesus know the answer when He asked the people "Where have you laid him?" (Jn. 11:34) is an issue that comes from the question of whether Jesus limited the use of His divine omniscience to human levels or emptied Himself of its use and relied on the Holy Spirit to give Him knowledge necessary for His messianic mission. It is usually a “decide for” question though it gains significance when we ask if we can be like Jesus.

As we comprehend these levels of certainty and begin to employ them as a community of believers, we can avoid the trap of being unnecessarily divisive on one hand and compromising the faith on the other. As we emphasize the essentials, we are less likely to fall for the cultural accommodations of Christianity that lead to liberalism. That also helps us keep secondary issues in perspective and avoid the divisions they create.