Defending Division ??

I'm finally getting around to answering Mark Olson's challenge over at Pseudo Polymath:

My question to the God Blogosphere is the following. Of the differences we hold, why are they strong enough to keep us apart, out of communion, and in (sometimes bitter) disagreement. What are these differences? I challenge you to defend them! Tell us what differences you hold more important than what you profess each week: your belief in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Or are the differences just political and based on historical inertia? If it is just traditions of styles of worship and praxis, why does that still hold us apart? I don't have the answers to these questions, but many out there who read this undoubtedly have thoughts on this.

Mark has already received a few responses to this which he discusses here.

There are others who have already responded. Mike Russell at Eternal Perspectives responds here, Rey at the Bible Archive responds here, and my twin blogging brother Adrian responds here.

I haven't read any of their posts in detail yet, just because I wanted to get my own thoughts together first, then interact with them.  So, here goes.       

And, I'm especially looking forward to Jeremy Pierc'es response which he promised here.

As I mentioned here, I'm not real crazy about the question itself. The question assumes that "one holy catholic church" will have no divisions.  Further it puts us all on the defense when it says "tell us what differences are more important than what you profess each week," and then he goes on to talk about our belief in "one holy catholic church."  Why assume that we hold our differences as of greater importance than our belief in "one holy catholic church?" In asking why traditions of style of worship or praxis hold us apart, this assumes that traditions themselves are a problem, rather than a blessing.  Further, the differences that come between us are almost always over matters of biblical conviction.  True, churches have divided over far less than that, but most of the divisons we have are based on the fact that different people have different biblical convictions about some matters.  So, we might phrase Mark's question another way and ask "at what point are you willing to tell someone else that their biblical conviction should be abandoned for the sake of unity?"

In saying all of that I don't mean to be as cantankerous as I sound, and I understand what Mark is getting at, and the gist of the question is a good one.  But you can't reach the right conclusions unless you ask the right questions, and I only mean to emphasize that there are many more questions that need to be asked in such a discussion.

So, what's my take on the whole thing?  First of all, the fact that there are divisions does not mean that there is disunity.  And while much division is sinful, not all division is sinful.  In one sense, the church must be divided, or every city would have one church with up to hundreds of thousands of people in it in the biggest cities.  In that sense, the church would have to be divided to have any kind of body life.  Just for the sake of convenience and travel it makes sense to have many churches in neighborhoods rather than having people drive many miles to a central church. That's silly you say, that's not what we are talking about.  True, it may not be, but it serves as an example of the fact that divison does not equal disunity. 

We can take that a step further and acknowledge that, in our bigger cities there are Christians from different nationalities there.  In our town we have a large number of Koreans.  It is ok for the Koreans to divide from the English speaking churches?  Well, it is if the Koreans want to hear the Word of God in their own language.  True, over generations the Korean kids may become fluent in English and be integrated into English speaking churches, but, for the time being there is nothing wrong with the Koreans meeting in their own buildings and being separated from the English speaking churches. 

But that's not what we are talking about is it?  We're talking about the doctrinal and traditional differences that divide us.  We can understand why someone would divide for the sake of convenience or for the sake of hearing the gospel in their own language, but surely we shouldn't be divided over doctrinal and traditional issues.

It is at this point that I challenge our presuppositions.  In our day we tend to assume that doctrinal matters are the "lesser things" of the Christian faith, while unity is the greatest thing of the Christian faith.

In fact they are of equal importance.  Unity is vital, but on what is unity based?  Unity is based on a common commitment to and love for Jesus Christ, you say.  Sure enough, but who is Jesus?  How do we know who Jesus is?  Who is Jesus and how we come to know Him are doctrinal matters?  Can I have unity with someone who loves a Jesus who is not fully divine?  Who is not fully human? 

Yet there are plenty of other matters of doctrine and praxis that are truly unworthy of dividing over. 

Another matter is the question of what exactly unity looks like?  Must we have complete organizational unity in the church to prove that we truly believe in "one holy catholic church."  I contend that there are many churches and Christians from which I and my church are divided organizationally but for which we are united organically.  True, I am organizationally, geographically, and doctrinally divided from the Baptist church down the street, but we are not necessarily dis-united. We are united in our common concern for the advancement of the gospel.

I know I've beaten all around the bush and haven't answered Mark's question, so I'll talk about my church's practice when it comes to unity.  When someone wants to join our church we look for a credible profession of faith in Christ.  We interview people and ask them for a testimony of their relationship with Christ.  We really don't grill them about it either.  We ask them a couple of questions to make sure they understand that they are justified by faith in Christ. 

With us being a Presbyterian Church we believe in things like Calvinism, infant baptism and presbyteriann form of church government.  But no one has to sign on to those beliefs to join.  We tell them in our new members class that these are the things we teach and we ask them if they can abide being in a church that teaches such things, but they don't have to swear allegiance to any of those doctrinal matters to become a member. 

As I have mentioned before, the whole baptism issue often comes up for us.  I do all I can to persuade people that infant baptism is biblical and that they should believe it.  But I always preface and conclude these discussions by reminding people that their conscience is captive to the Word of God and they must follow what they believe the Scriptures teach.  If I have not been able to persuade someone that infant baptism is biblical then they are sinning if they adopt this position just to accomodate me or my church.  And again, they don't have to adopt this position to be a member.  For us, though we are Calvinistic, presbyterian, infant baptizers and all of that, we see those as matters of lesser importance when it comes to membership and communion.  We only look for what we believe Jesus looks for - a credible profession of faith in Christ.

BTW, at the risk of stirring up controversy, I would point out that when I was a member of Baptist churches, communion was contingent on belief in and the practice of believer's baptism.  Someone who believed in a more covenantal, reformed view of baptism were required to compromise on that conviction to become a member of the church.  We've actually had some interesting discussions amongst some of our church leaders about this.  There are some who believe that, though we have a conviction on this matter, it is a matter of lesser importance.  Therefore, if they were in a place where the only church they could go to was a Baptist church they would be willing to be re-baptized in deference to the beliefs of the church. 

So, I would say that on the most basic level, the only requirement for unity with other Christians is a credible profession of faith in Christ.

The next level of discussion involves the organizational unity of the church.  While we only ask for a credible profession of faith for membership, our leaders must embrace our doctrinal distinctives. But even this does not prevent us from being unified with churches of other denominations for the cause of sharing the gospel.  Our own church has united with a Baptist church in Ocean City, MD for numerous mission trips during the summer.

I think our real task is not only to build unity, but to ask what kind of unity we are trying to build.  A real issue for us is how to practice Romans 14:

 

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. ² One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ³ The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. ⁴ Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

⁵ One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. ⁷ For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

In this passage Paul was allowing for disagreements in the church over what some would consider insignificant matters - like eating meat or not, or how one observes the sabbath.   That is why I asked at what point someone wants to ask someone else to compromise their convictions for the sake of unity.  I am reminded of Eric Liddel's famous words in Chariots of Fire when he was accused of impertinence for refusing to run on Sunday:

Impertinence? The impertinence, sir, lies with those who would seek to persuade a man to deny his beliefs!

Actually, there is an interesting parallel between the situation in the movie and the situation in the church.  Liddel was being chastised for putting his personal beliefs above the good of the nation.  Similarly in the church, those who place unity on a higher pedestal than doctrine chastise the doctrinaire folks for placing their doctrinal convictions above the unity of the church.

Yet Paul says in Romans 14 that we are to learn to live with those who differ from us and not judge them.  So, I can disagree with my baptist friend about his view of baptism, but I am not judging him in this way. In his question Mark hits the nail on the head when he uses the word "bitterly."  The question is not so much about our divisions, it is about how we have divided.  The sin is in the bitterness, not in the division itself.

No army ever goes out to fight the battle as one, en masse.  The army splits itself into platoons with different assignments.  It is a good thing that we have so many churches of so many flavors.  These different flavors enable churches to reach people of different flavors.  Praise God for that!

So, my point in all of this is to say that the divisions in the body of Christ can be a blessing or a curse, it depends on what we make of them.  Further, not all criticism is harmful.  Because Adrian Warnock and I disagree over the issue of charismatic gifts (and even debate it publicly for the world to see) doesn't mean we are divided.  These kinds of criticisms and debates are healthy and are a part of the refining and sharpening process in sanctification. 

But having said that, I do think we can do more to show our unity.  But that's for another post. In the meantime, may I encourage everyone to read John Frame's book Evangelical Reunion, which can be downloaded for free in .pdf format from Third Millennium Ministries.  When you get to ThirdMill, you'll have to do a search for "Evangelical Reunion," and it will take you to a page where you can download each chapter individually.