Superficial and Divisive Unity

The words "Jesus" and "God" are used by many, but what do those words mean? What does it mean to be a "Christian?" Is it okay to press for a clearer definition of those terms and how a person is using them, or is that being too nit-picky and unloving? Should we just take everyone and what they say at face value? 

If we are upfront about our theological distinctives, we then have a platform from which to let others know what confessions we align with the most. This way, we aren't being manipulative in our conversations and with our teaching. With proper boundaries set in place, we can acknowledge where we agree and disagree, all with the common goal of sharpening one another according to the Word of God and the working of his Spirit. But this requires a resolve to take theology seriously, take ourselves less seriously, and desire to grow in a meaningful way. Pretending that we are all on the same page and overlooking important differences can only foster a superficial unity that is not based on Christ's Word.¹

Is superficial unity what we want? It may give a temporary warm fuzzy, but don't we want to be as clear as possible about what we believe?

The following is an excerpt from Iain Murray's summary of his book, Evangelicalism Divided, which details the sad results from sacrificing doctrine for the sake of "unity." I think his words are still worth heeding.

Liberalism entered our pulpits and it came in the name of Christ. It spoke much of devotion to Jesus. It used traditional Christian language. Christ, it said, is to be experienced, admired, and followed. A crucial difference between its message and historic Christianity, let me remind you, was over how anyone enters into real Christian experience. Liberalism taught that faith comes from our own human intuition, all that is needed is a well-disposed heart. It held that there can be faith in Christ without revealed truth and an authoritative Bible. People can have genuine experience of Christ quite apart from doctrinal beliefs. “Christianity is life not doctrine” was the great cry. The promise was that Christianity would advance wonderfully if it was no longer shackled by insistence on doctrines and orthodox beliefs....²

That problem was the way in which the definition of a Christian had been changed and undermined. A different idea of what it meant to be a Christian was very widespread, both in pulpits and in pews. Scripture teaches that it is faith in the gospel of Christ which is indispensable for salvation: liberalism believes that men and women can have “the Christian life” without the Christian faith. Charles Hodge states the cleavage in these words: 

"A man who believes certain doctrines is a Christian. If his faith is mere assent, he is a speculative Christian; if it is cordial and appreciating, he is a true Christian. But to say that a man may be a Christian, without believing the doctrines of Christianity, is a contradiction. A man may be amiable and benevolent, without any definite form of faith, but how is he to be a Christian?"

Contrary to those words, the starting point of the ecumenical movement is that all who say they are Christians, on a minimum profession of faith, are to be accepted as such. It saw no reason to question that assumption. So the priority for the churches, according to ecumenism, is not a recovery of the faith and of truths essential to salvation; it is the uniting of those who say they are already believers. In a day when liberalism was dominant in almost all the main denominations, the ecumenical church leaders were ignoring the main problem. The possibility that teachers and people had adopted the Christian name without ever meeting with the risen Jesus did not seem to come into their reckoning.³

1. No Little Women, Aimee Byrd, P&R Publishing, 2016, pg. 233. (italics mine)

2. Divisive Unity, Iain H. Murray, The Master's Seminary Journal, Fall 2001, pg. 233.

3. Ibid. pg. 283.

Edited 11:31 to correct Murray quote.