Gospel Unity and Levels of Certainty
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).
“Wise Christians understand that some issues, which may seem fundamental, are actually seeds of division planted by the enemy of our souls.”
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?
In navigating divisive issues, I have found it most helpful to distinguish levels of certainty. Then I can differentiate what is essential from that which is merely controversial. For me, this breaks down into four levels: First are things I would “die for.” To deny them knowingly would demonstrate that you are outside the boundaries of gospel orthodoxy and perhaps not in living relationship with Jesus.
Second are things I would “divide for.” We are Christians, fellow members of the body of Christ, but we won’t be in the same local fellowship. Third are things I would “debate for.” Here, we are in the same church but we will wrestle (sometimes heatedly) with these issues. Fourth are things we “decide for.” These issues contribute to the rich diversity in the life of our church. Let’s discuss each in turn.
Die For
This category contains the foundations of the faith once delivered to the saints for which we contend earnestly (Jude 3). If necessary, the truth of the gospel incorporated in these propositions are things for which we would give up our life. They include the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as the God-man, Jesus, including his virgin birth, sinless life,substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and personal return. Also included is justification and regeneration by grace alone through faith alone which is lived out in gospel centered good works (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 2:11-13;3:3-8), the Spirit’s personal indwelling believers constituting the one body of Christ, and the final judgment leading to hell and heaven.
Calling a person who knowingly denies essentials of the faith a brother or sister in Christ for the sake of “unity” truly denies the unity founded on the truth of Jesus Christ. We see a growing progressive wing that calls for humility and broadening the definition of gospel orthodoxy to include universalism. Humility concerning such items can never be a virtue. Some truths are worth dying for.
Divide For
Everyone who affirms the essentials in word and life is a fellow member of Christ’s body, one whom we call brother or sister in Christ. However, other important issues are so foundational to our life with God that we will divide fellowship over them. In ancient times it led to the division between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). In modern times, these are the foundations of the denominational differences.
Arminians will divide from Reformed over the extent of God’s sovereignty and election. Both may divide from Pentecostals over the nature and timing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is baptism the sign and seal of membership in the covenant community appropriate for infant children of believers or is it a sign of personal confession of Jesus as Lord appropriate only for believers? Should the mission of the church include promoting justice in society as a major ministry focus along with winning the lost and worshiping God? Separate churches will form depending on whether women can be elders or pastors and if the Sunday morning church service should be liturgical, expositional, or celebrative.
It seems to me that such divisions may be legitimate so long as the overall unity of the body is affirmed and the dividing points are truly central issues.
These divisions become problematic when the dividing walls are so high that there is little contact between different groups, when we devote blogs to what is wrong with the other group, or when arguments between the groups drain significant energy from our worship of God, building godliness or proclaiming the gospel.
When we recognize that these are “divide for,” not “die for” issues, we can pray for each other and cooperate in issues of Christian life, justice ministry, and evangelism.
In recent years, we have reduced the number of issues in the “divide for”category. Often this is because there is an attempt to look for unifying points and see the differences within that light. When churches emphasize the power of the Spirit’s work and the fullness of the gifts, the evidentiary significance of speaking in tongues that used to divide Pentecostals and Charismatics is much less significant. As we affirm strongly the centrality of Scripture, fewer will divide over the question of whether God speaks today only through Scripture, or if He also speaks through prophetic revelation.
When the unifying truth of a whole-person spirituality (including mind, will,emotions, body and spirit) is emphasized, churches balance careful teaching of the Word and the expectation of a gospel-centered, heart-level obedience.
Jesus calls us to unity and so we should pursue gospel ecumenism, a spiritual unity that still respects these important differences. This kind of ecumenism promotes true understanding between instead of caricatures of the other groups. It speaks first and primarily of our unity in Christ and addresses others as fellow believers.
Debate For
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.
“The wrestling may be prolonged or painful, but we do it while maintaining regular fellowship, joining in worship and service.”
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.
Decide For
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).
Conclusion
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.
