Friday, March 6, 2009

"In essentials unity"

Kevin DeYoung is exploring the very important question of disunity among Christians. Several days ago he set forth the issue in "Unity and Truth":
There is no issue that has come up in my mind over the past few years, and no issue that I find more perplexing, than the issue of unity and truth. Everyone agrees that church unity is important. Everyone agrees that being true to Scripture is important. Everyone likes the saying: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” But no one can agree which are which.

We need fences for our faith, but which fences do we need and where do we put them? Ask that question to a hundred different Christians and you’ll get 30 different answers, which doesn’t mean the question is pointless. It means what it means. One person’s gray area is another person’s immorality. And one person’s courageous conviction is another person’s misplaced stubbornness. The answer is not to say there are no answers, nor is it to pretend that I have the holy middle ground that avoids everyone else's mistakes. The answer is...well, I’m not sure. ....

The general principle is not hard to grasp: we can’t budge on some issues, but on other issues we can allow for differences. Almost everyone admits this, at least in principle. Virtually every Christian, no matter how liberal, has some beliefs that are non-negotiable, be it the love of God or the evil of racism or God’s concern for the poor. And virtually every Christian, no matter how conservative, puts some issues in the “ok to disagree on” category, be it the circumstances of the worship service, the use of cloth diapers, or the interpretation of the “Nephilim.” There simply is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question of unity and truth. Sometimes the answer is to be inflexible and uncompromising. Other times the answer is to be understanding and accommodating. Yes, the slope is slippery on both sides. ....[more]
It is DeYoung's intention to explore the question by examining the views of "wise, godly men who have thought through these issues." He begins with Martyn Lloyd-Jones and in several posts [here, here, and here] summarizes Lloyd-Jones's position. Today, DeYoung responds to Lloyd-Jones and makes several points, especially with regard to denominationalism, that I liked. At the risk of distortion [read it all] a few quotations:
  • Lloyd-Jones is spot on with his insistence that we state negatives as well as positives. The orthodox party at Nicea objected to earlier compromise solutions, not because they disagreed with the confession being offered, but because the Arians could agree with it too, and they knew they didn’t mean the same thing as the Arians. In a world of linguistic slipperiness and doctrinal indifferentism, we owe it to others and ourselves to state not only what we believe, but what we reject.
  • Lloyd-Jones’ list of essentials hits on the most important doctrines of our faith and the ones that most define us as evangelicals: scripture, justification, regeneration, atonement, and original sin. Indeed, these are essential matters of our faith.
  • Conservatives tend to worry about compromise more than unnecessary division, but both are sins. Reformed evangelicals in particular need to consider, from time to time, if we are being too rigid. Lloyd-Jones’ use of Calvin and Philippians 3:15 should convince all of us that some doctrines are simply not as essential as others. Those of us in love with the truth (which we should all be!) would do well to recognize that there is a difference between denying the truth and honestly misunderstanding a text of Scripture. Of course, there’s a danger here too, because almost everyone tries to make their case from Scripture. But Lloyd-Jones (and Calvin, and Paul) are right: on this side of paradise we will not always see clearly, nor will we always see things the same way. The thoughtful, serious evangelical who differs with us on baptism is not a truth-hater or a rebel to God’s word, he is simply mistaken.
  • ...I disagree with Lloyd-Jones that the existence of different denomination implies division. In my opinion, denominations allow for the free exercise of conscience. I don’t consider myself estranged from my Baptist brethren in other churches and denominations. I can have unity with evangelical Baptists by praying for them, partnering with them, and enjoying fellowship with them, all without being in the same official church with them. I’m thankful for them, and thankful that we can each worship God according to the dictates of our conscience as informed by the Word of God.
  • As I said above, we should all be most passionate about the essentials, but what if by “Presbyterian-Evangelical” you meant “I am not a nondescript evangelical, but an confessional, reformed evangelical”? Would this be so bad? In our day where evangelical means a thousand different things, at least Baptist or Presbyterian or Anglican means only a hundred different things. I am not sympathetic with those who despise evangelicals, but I do sympathize with those who want to be more than just an evangelical.
DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: Unity and Truth, DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed: Martyn Lloyd-Jones: What is an Evangelical? (4)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.