Material, not just formal, unity

These are bewildering times for Christians seeking to live faithfully to Christ, under his authority.  I think they are times which require us to rethink our approach to a number of things, not least how we understand Christian unity.

The approach to Christian unity which has characterised evangelicalism rests, I think, particularly on a formal principle: the authority of Scripture.  We can unite with people who share our commitment to the authority of Holy Scripture.  There is a lot of sense in this.  Whilst we can have a conversation with all sorts of people, there is no likelihood of agreement where there is no common commitment to a way of knowing.  Disagreements between people who are equally committed to Scripture at least have some hope of resolution, and an agreed way (in principle) of reaching that resolution: we read and study and debate Scripture together.  Take away that formal agreement - either by taking away the commitment to Scripture, or by adding to it another authority - and material agreement becomes much more difficult, perhaps even impossible.  At the very least, we are having a different sort of conversation if we're talking to someone who isn't happy to follow us into the Bible for answers, and who isn't pre-committed to accepting and submitting to those answers if they're satisfied that they really are biblical.

And so the authority of Scripture is a sensible rallying point.  But it has never been the case that commitment to this formal principle alone is sufficient for Christian unity.  There have always been heretics who claim to hold to biblical authority, and even make an impressive show of deference to the Bible.  Leaving actual heresy aside, even amongst mutually acknowledged Christians there are limits to how much practical unity we can have purely on this formal basis.  And so we qualify our basis for unity: we have unity with those who take Scripture as their authority (the formal principle) within certain bounds (and here we are introducing material beliefs).  Normally for evangelicals that means there is a minimalist statement of faith which we look to as a standard; and so long as people subscribe our minimum standard,  and remain committed to the formal principle, we allow latitude on a whole bunch of issues.

And here's where it gets tricky.  Our minimum standards don't tend to address the hot-button issues of the day, like racism or human sexuality.  The latter in particular is becoming a significant dividing line amongst professing Christians, and it isn't addressed in our evangelical standards.  So what do we do?  Typically we fall back here on the formal principle: you have to believe what the Bible says about sexuality.  We turn it from a material issue (about theological anthropology, say) into a formal issue (about the authority of the Bible).  But this raises two issues.  Firstly, what do we do when people on the other side of the debate claim to be submitting to the authority of Scripture?  We can debate them, in that case, on biblical grounds, and hope to persuade them of our reading of Scripture, but in the meantime is this an 'agree to disagree' situation?  I don't see how it can be.  Second, if this is in fact a fracture point, do we understand why it is so significant?  Why must we divide over this disagreement about the interpretation of Scripture, but not over so many other things which we have (for the sake of unity) designated 'secondary issues', outside the scope of our doctrinal statements?

Here is a difficult thing: we don't want to divide over issues like baptism (who, when, how), or church government, or our understanding of eschatology, but we will divide over sexuality.  Doesn't it sound like we're just cherry picking issues?  Might it not seem as if this is driven basically by homophobia rather than doctrine?  Why, after all, pick this issue as the line?  It will not do to claim that sexual ethics is more important or central - more important than baptism, "which now saves you"?  (Elevating anthropology and ethics above the church and soteriology is not a great way to go, I think).  I am also not convinced it will do to claim that Scripture speaks more clearly on this issue - I think it is also perfectly clear on baptism!

It seems to me that the way forward is a renewed confessionalism, which will show that our formal principle is not merely formal, but carries material content.  That is to say, we need to be able to show that Christian doctrine does not proceed in two stages - first sorting out the source of doctrine in Scripture and then moving on to what the Bible actually says.  Rather, we need to show that our commitment to Scripture and its authority is part of a whole view of God's being and activity; that it already carries with it material content; that the nature of Scripture and its place within the dispensation of grace entails a particular way of reading.  We need a thicker, more substantial doctrine of Scripture, along with a broader confession of Christian truth that goes beyond the bare minimum.  Nobody wants to build higher fences unnecessarily, but I'm not sure we have any other option if we want to maintain Christian orthodoxy in our churches.

Catholicism and Sectarianism

In the Creed, we confess our faith in "one holy catholic and apostolic church".  This phrase is a stumbling block for some, because when they hear the word 'catholic' they immediately think Roman Catholic, and of course they don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church in that sense.  For that reason, the word 'catholic' is sometimes dropped and replaced with 'universal'.  I have no particular problem with that switch, although I would on the whole prefer to retain the word 'catholic' and explain its meaning.  It is true that in the Roman Church, the word 'catholic' is thought to refer to the universal validity of that church which is in communion with the Pope, with its clerical hierarchy and congregations.  To be outside the Roman communion is to be (to some extent; the line has become a little more fuzzy for post-Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism) outside the catholic church.  But I don't think we must, or should, accept the Roman construal of catholicism.  Let me try to offer an alternative.

To believe in the catholic church is to believe that Christ has but one people, one body.  This is the church.  It is one across the centuries, and it is one throughout the world.  It's unity is not direct, but indirect; by which I mean, the members are not joined directly to one another, but are all joined in the one Holy Spirit to Christ.  The catholicism of the church, therefore, does not rest on any human organisational scheme, whether that of Rome or anything else; it rests in a common faith in the Lord Jesus.  This commonality may well be only imperfectly expressed, or even sometimes completely hidden, in this world, but since it is grounded in Christ it cannot be ultimately broken and will be ultimately revealed.

That's how I understand catholicism.  But to get at what it means in practice, it is perhaps more useful to ask what a catholic spirit looks like, and to illustrate that by contrasting it with its opposite, sectarianism.  In essence, the catholic spirit draws the boundaries of the church as broadly as possible, where the sectarian spirit tends toward narrowness.  There are lots of ways in which this plays out.

The catholic sees an essential unity between the church of the past and the church of the present, and looks on the theological and creedal decisions of the past as having (relative) authority within the church.  The sectarian, by contrast, is free to reject the past, and tends to be disparaging of the church in past ages.

The catholic sees their own church as part of a greater whole, and is therefore free to draw upon liturgical and theological resources from around the world, throughout time, and across a broad ecclesial spectrum.  The sectarian tends to make use only of resources from their own particular tradition, or in more extreme cases only things tailor-made for their own congregation and situation.

Again, the catholic sees their own church as part of a greater whole, and therefore wants to bring the particular insights and strengths of their tradition to the rest of the church in service.  The sectarian is happy just doing their own thing.

The catholic can't be content with the divided nature of the church, but seeks a clearer expression of the essential unity of the church.  This will involve entering into controversy - the catholic is not content to see parts of the church affected by theological error.  The sectarian, on the other hand, either adopts a 'live and let live' attitude to churches of different traditions (i.e., indifference), or writes off any church which significantly disagrees with his own position as outside the church altogether.

Examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea.

Be more catholic.

Of first importance

It is a commonplace of Evangelical theology to divide doctrines into primary and secondary - the primary being those which constitute the heart of the gospel message, and the secondary being the other stuff. It's a sensible, Biblically-sanctioned division, and it makes things possible in practice that couldn't happen otherwise. Bish has been writing a bit about dealing with secondary issues in CU, specifically baptism in the Spirit and women's ministry. Some of the responses - not so much on the blog, but on Facebook - have been pretty angry, especially about the latter post. It interests me, not only because of my history working with Christian Unions, but also because I think that it is, ironically, the way in which we treat these contested points which reveals our most basic theological commitments. Let me just share a few thoughts, some of which I've already mentioned on Bish's blog, and others which are new.

1. This isn't just an issue for CUs. It's an issue for churches. Of course, churches are practically limited in how broad they can be (they have to have a particular baptismal practice, for example, and you either have women preaching or you don't), but still, if you never have to work out how to get on with someone in your church when you disagree over doctrine it is probably because your church is too narrow.

2. The church is constituted by an act of divine sovereignty, by which the Father unites his Son to us, through the incarnation, and us to his Son through the work of the Spirit. Because it is an act of divine sovereignty, it is a given, not something to be achieved. When I come face to face with someone who disagrees with me within the church, I need to remember this fact. The church is not a club - not a free organisation of human beings, which I can be part of or not, and which I can casually exclude other people from. It is a creation of God.

3. The way we deal with secondary issues should reflect the fact that these secondary matters are really further definitions of primary issues. This throws up difficulties - for example, the Presbyterian and I both say that people are saved by grace through faith (primary truth!), but I can't see how his secondary idea of infant baptism can fail to contradict this, and he can't see how my idea of adult baptism can possibly be in line with it. Our ideas about baptism are a further definition of what we mean when we say 'saved by grace through faith'. So, the way I approach this difference cannot be to just live and let live - we have to both seek to give an account of our faith, explaining why our view on the secondary flows from the gospel. And as we do that, we have to keep reminding ourselves - keep believing - that the person we're talking does believe that same gospel, even if we cannot see it at the moment.

4. Jesus still rules his church. A discussion of secondary issues is not a comparison of opinions. It is a question of whether we will submit to the sovereignty of Christ over the church. Concretely, that means whether we will submit to Scripture, through which Christ rules. Therefore, the form of our disagreement must be exegesis and nothing else. As soon as something else comes into view - 'that opinion is old fashioned', 'that won't help our witness' - we are in the realm of our own thoughts and in rebellion against Christ. We start with Scripture, and end with Scripture. Only in so far as we are bound to the words of Scripture are we bound to the Word of God.

5. Where exegesis is the form of the disagreement, and where both sides are seeking to bind themselves to Scripture, we hope for resolution of the disagreement and we do not give up listening to Scripture together. In the meantime, we proceed by faith and work out how in practice we can have visible communion that expresses the invisible communion that we do have by faith. (It's at this point that Bish's posts come into play).

When truth demands division

Have a peek at Adrian Warnock's blog if you're not aware that Word Alive, the popular student week of Spring Harvest, is no more. Essentially, the relationship between UCCF and Keswick on the one hand, and Spring Harvest on the other, has come to something of a messy end. So here we go. Disunity amongst Christians. Harsh words spoken. Bad feeling.

What a disaster.

Except that this was division caused by two issues. The first issue was the truth of penal substitution. UCCF and Keswick insisted that people who are known to disbelieve in this doctrine not appear at Word Alive. Why? Because this is the gospel. This is the heart of our salvation in Christ. When we start to talk about the Lord Jesus bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, becoming a curse for us - then we are well within the realm of essential truths, truths not to be compromised on. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and if I'm any judge of things this is the place to draw it. Did Christ bear the penalty for sin? That question is crucial. To preserve the clarity of this central gospel truth, division is justified.

But there is a second issue which is more frustrating. There will always be error, and people who hold the truth according to the Scriptures will always have to battle it, and when necessary separate from those who hold it. But what about the apparently large number of people who don't disagree with penal subsitution - but just don't see why it matters enough to divide over? What's going on there? This kind of doctrinal indifferentism is a real tragedy, on so many levels. It shows a lack of a deep understanding of the cross, because if the truth of it were understood in head and heart surely there would be more zeal for that truth on display? It hinders unity amongst Christians who hold the Scriptural view, because often the "indifferentists" will prefer to maintain unity with those who are in error than with those who hold the truth, even though their minimalist theological convictions are more in line with the latter. And most fundamentally, it dishonours Jesus by holding that it doesn't matter exactly what he did on the cross.

So, Word Alive is dead - but New Word Alive is... um... alive. And so there could be good that comes out of this: a great conference where the truth of the gospel is spoken unashamedly, without confusion. This could be a rallying point for all those who love the central truths of the gospel. Whether it will turn out that way or not will depend in large part on whether Biblical Christians can shake off the disease of indifferentism.

Postscript

Check out the wonderful linkage available via the blue fish project.

United we stand? (4)

Here are just a few implications of things that I've been waffling about so far on the nature of Christian unity. They're not designed to be a complete blueprint for all future activity expressive of Christian unity, but I do think they're things that people ought to take on board.

Future ecumenical activity should have a strong confessional basis
Since Christian unity is based on truth, attempts to display that unity must also be based on the truth. If big ecumenical events are planned, they should have at their heart a statement of the gospel around which we are uniting. This will doubtless exclude some people who have hitherto been involved in events, although it may also encourage some who have not been involved wholeheartedly to come onboard. However, even if this course of action seemed pragmatically undesirable, we should take it because it allows us to draw the lines in the same place as the New Testament.

Unity need not flow from church leaders or structures

An informal Bible study group consisting of people from different churches is as much a display of the visible unity that the New Testament calls for as a meeting of church leaders, or an event jointly organised by different churches. In many ways this sort of grass-roots unity is a better expression of Christian unity than an organised event, because it flows more directly from the sense of a shared experience of the Spirit and a shared commitment to the truth.

Christian unity will only be made visible through relationships

At one level this simply flows from the nature of the unity that we see in God the Trinity. At a more pragmatic level, it is necessitated by the need to assess the visible evidence of spiritual unity that I have argued for. Only in the context of a relationship can there be the realisation that we share the same experience of the Spirit and the same faith. This is as much true for Christian churches and organisations as it is for individuals.

No individual, church or organisation should be asked to commit to a programme or event in which they have no control over who else is invited to join

This follows from the previous point. It is not reasonable to ask Christians to unite with others when they have had no chance to ascertain whether they show evidence of spiritual unity.

To decline visible unity with someone is not necessarily to impugn their salvation

There are many valid reasons why a Christian, Church or organisation may decline to unite visibly with another group or individual. The most obvious would be that they simply do not know whether they share the same faith and the one Spirit. However, no person or group’s choice to decline unity in any given situation should be understood to mean that they do not believe another person or group to be spiritually united to Christ. At worst, they may claim that the other person or group does not seem to share the faith and experience of the Spirit which they are looking for as evidence of their spiritual unity. However, charity demands that we not assume that persons or groups declining unity are making even this limited judgement unless they specifically say so.

Within those limits, I think that we should be seeking to maintain the unity God has given us - putting real energy into doing so, with enthusiasm. And I think we should be making that unity visible - whether through big events, joint ventures, or just co-operation locally - so that the world can see that we are Christ's disciples.

United we stand? (3)

I promise I'm getting towards the point of this lengthy excursus into ecclesiology.

The more discerning reader will have noticed that the two aspects of our unity mentioned in my last post relate pretty directly to the Reformation distinction between the Church as catholic (universal) assembly and the church as local congregation. Despite some theological difficulties with this distinction, it seems to remain valid. All those who are united with Christ are united with the Church catholic, which is the Bride of Christ. However, as it is impossible to discern an individual’s connection to Christ, so it is impossible to state with exactitude the limits of the catholic Church. The unity is real and God-given, but it is not visible in itself.

All those who are united by a common experience of the Spirit and a common faith, however, are called to form local congregations as visible expressions of the catholic church. This unity is visible because based on things that can, to an extent, be discerned by Christians. Of course, this visible unity assumes invisible unity, just as the gift of the Spirit and unity in the one faith assume a common union with Christ. In fact, the reason we unite with those who share our faith and our experience of the Spirit is that these things provide evidence that we are already united with them on the basis of our mutual unity with Christ.

It follows from what we have said about the impossibility of discerning with precision the boundaries of the catholic Church that there may well be those with whom we have visible unity but with whom we are not, in fact, spiritually united – in other words, there will be those within the congregations of our churches who are not, in fact, united with Christ. This is not something that we could ever ascertain for certain. Furthermore, the New Testament does not encourage us to give it too much thought. We are encouraged to unite with all those who testify to their experience of the Spirit and hold the same faith. Only God can look deeper than this. Therefore, we should not be suspicious of people in our churches, or in other churches, who appear to share the Spirit and the truth. Rather, we must look on them as brothers and sisters and unite with them accordingly, leaving the final judgement to God. If we are called to be suspicious of anyone, it is of ourselves.

It is important to recognise at the same time that the New Testament does not encourage us to be so charitable as to assume that those who do not share our experience of the Spirit and do not hold to the faith entrusted once for all to the saints are nevertheless really united with Christ. We are directed to the marks of visible unity – the Spirit and the truth – and not to speculation on a person’s spiritual state.

My interim conclusion is this: visible unity must be based on the visible marks of unity given us in Scripture. To go beyond this in trying to unite more broadly is presumption. It assumes that in the absence of the evidence that God has told us to look for, we can nevertheless discern whether someone is united spiritually to Christ. That seems to me to be a claim to knowledge that only God has. On the other hand, to refuse to unite with those who share in the visible marks of unity seems equally presumptuous, as it involves declaring ourselves to be disunited from those who show the evidence of being united to Christ that God has told us to look for.

Tomorrow I plan to wrap this up with a few more practical comments.

United we stand? (2)

It occurs to me that I could write a lot - and I do mean a lot! - on this topic. I was thinking it would be nice to go right down to theological roots. We could think about how there was unity (or perhaps Unity) before the beginning in the Godhead. We could ponder the unity that there will be in the end - when everything is gathered up under one head, even Christ. We could devote considerable space to thinking about the character of this unity: we would probably arrive at the cliched but none the less apposite phrase "unity in diversity".

But that would take a long time.

So I thought I'd focus on one issue: what is it that unites Christians?

I think the answer can be given, and must be given, at two different levels. At the first, and deepest level, Christians are united to one another because they are united to Christ. Unity with Christ is in fact the reason that we are Christians at all. Because we are united to him, we have died with him and risen with him (Colossians 2:11-12, for example). Our unity with him is basic. And if I am united to Christ, and that guy over there is united to Christ, then I am united to him. That's just the way it works. That unity with Christ is brought about by faith in him. It follows that I am united to everyone who has faith in Christ.

But there is a problem. This vital unity with Christ is (to some extent at least) unseen and unexperienced (in a corporate sense: this is not to deny the very real and very precious experiences that the believer has of being united to Christ). Unity with Christ does mean unity with all of his people – with everyone else who is united to him. But this begs the question, how are we to recognise such people? Given that we are not able to discern directly a person’s status with regard to Christ, how are we to know with whom we are called to unite?

Scripture provides two main marks to help us in this regard. Firstly, unity is understood as resulting from a common experience of the Holy Spirit. This is manifestly so in Acts 10, for example. Seeing that the Gentiles of Cornelius’ household have received the same Spirit as the apostles, Peter does not hesitate to welcome them into visible unity through baptism. This understanding also lies behind Paul’s call to the Ephesians (4:3) to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit. Dunn’s comments are illuminating:

The practical theological corollary to this is that the community of the Spirit is in no sense a human creation. For Paul, we may fairly say, community grew out of the shared experience of the Spirit. Or, as we might say, fellowship… grew out of common participation in the one Spirit. Otherwise it was not the body of Christ.

Perhaps one of the greatest roadblocks on the way to true Christian unity at present is the debate over what this experience of the Spirit is. This certainly requires further investigation, but as a base camp for the expedition I would make the point that certainly none of the particular spiritual gifts can be intended, since the New Testament is clear that Christians are given diverse gifts. It may well be more useful to consider the role of the Spirit as described in John 16, testifying to Jesus and convicting people of sin, righteousness and judgement – in other words, precisely conversion. That this conversion is to be a manifest experience rather than a mere decision or assent is perhaps a challenge to contemporary thinking in some evangelical circles.

Alongside this mark of unity, Scripture presents a unity in the truth – an agreement on the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. This concern is manifested in the prayer of the Lord Jesus in John 17, a foundational text for any consideration of Christian unity. It is generally accepted that this prayer shows Jesus’ deep concern for the unity of his people, but less attention is paid to the description of that unity that the Lord gives. A close reading makes it clear that Jesus sees the “word” – in this context, the gospel message – as a prerequisite of his disciples’ unity: “I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them” (v. 8); “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them” (v. 14); “sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (v. 17); “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (v. 20). The unity that Jesus prays for is a product of the word. The gospel truth unites God’s people.

Paul underlines this in Ephesians 5:5 by listing “one faith” as one of the marks of the unity of the Spirit. In the context of the chapter, the reference is not to the subjective aspect of faith – not to the trust of the Christian – but to the objective content of the faith. This is that message described by Jude as “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Where this faith is held in common, there is visible unity.

Yikes, this is getting long. Perhaps more tomorrow?

United we stand?

Most of the thoughts I've been having very recently have been related to the issue of unity amongst Christians. I find myself frustrated by the approach to the topic that many people adopt. I detect two prevalent attitudes. On the one hand, there are churches and organisations that seem to have little interest in uniting with other Christians – or at least, little interest in displaying unity in any meaningful way. On the other hand, there are numerous initiatives designed to promote unity that seem to display little discernment with regard to whom they will unite with. Anyone who appears to name the name of Christ is welcome, no questions asked. Faced with the rock of isolationism, and the hard place of unprincipled unity, where is the Biblical Christian to turn? Neither is attractive; indeed, both appear to be betrayals of the gospel. Is there a way forward that does not involve either of these fatal compromises?

I'm also pretty convinced that the two attitudes expressed above reinforce one another. Those who have a deep concern for doctrine see the unprincipled unity that is being promoted, and often conclude that if this is what unity looks like, they have no interest in it. Concerned to keep the clarity of the gospel, they see the confusion prevalent in contemporary ecumenism and decide that they must remain apart from it. On the other hand, it is easy for those who are currently promoting the unity agenda to point to those who are not involved as roadblocks to unity. They may even accept that the current ecumenical movement is too broad, but conclude (to coin a phrase of Moody’s) that they prefer the way they are doing it to the way the others aren’t. If unprincipled unity and isolationism are the only alternatives on offer, we are likely to choose between them based on temperament, or our own confessional/denominational background rather than basing our choice on Scripture.

Actually, I think that a Scriptural approach would require us to take a third path - a path I intend to wander down as and when I have time over the next few days...