The word ‘unity’
is bandied about so much that one might imagine it needs no definition. It is held up as a primary value that sums up
a whole system of values, most notably, for some, the values of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Understood
through this triad of values, unity is communal and dispenses with unity around
doctrine and ethics. In fact, doctrine is
not highly valued, and traditional ethical convictions are even considered an obstruction to
unity.
Communal unity
is a value in Scripture. One pertinent
text is Philippians 2.1-11. In this
letter, Paul is concerned that two women, Euodia and Syntyche, agree with one
another in the Lord (4.2). ‘Agreement’
and ‘in the Lord’ point to the value of unity.
Thus, the earlier passage has contextual application in this
church. In Philippians 2.2, Paul says, ‘…
complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full
accord and of one mind.’ This ‘one mind’
sort of unity is not doctrinal or ethical but communal. Paul is concerned that Christians in the
church have love for one another and reject selfish ambition and conceit. They are, instead, to show humility, regarding
others as more significant and looking to everyone’s interests. Paul then holds
up Jesus as the Christian’s exemplar for such communal values. He showed believers how to humble Himself for
the sake of others.
In the same
letter, Paul addresses a doctrinal issue.
Some Judaizers have sought to introduce a doctrinal difference. They want Gentile believers to be circumcised
if they are to be Christians, essentially arguing that converts needed to
become Jews and come under the Mosaic covenant if they are to be Christians. Paul saw this as a rejection of the Gospel,
which understands salvation to be God’s work and not our work. Paul does not apply his language of communal
unity from chapter 2 to this situation.
Now that the issue is doctrinal, he uses an entirely different tone. Unity is not going to be found in allowing
for differences, let alone seeing strength in diversity. Rather, Paul says, ‘Look out for the dogs,
look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh’
(3.2). Philippians 2.1-11 does not apply when salvation by works of the
flesh is introduced into the church over against the work of Christ. Communal unity when there is doctrinal
disunity is to be rejected. Paul had
argued this before in his letter to the Galatian church on the same issue. He begins the letter with a strong tone that
continues throughout, saying,
I am
astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of
Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 not that there is another one, but there are some
who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be
accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If
anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him
be accursed (1.6-8).
A third type of
unity is unity in ethical teaching. In 1
Corinthians 5 and 6, Paul rejects sexual ethics at odds with Scriptural (Old
Testament) teaching. As with doctrine, Paul
has an equally exclusionary word for those introducing innovative teaching that
would have come from culture rather than the Word of God. He says,
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears
the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater,
reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one (5.11).
Communal unity
is rejected when it comes to doctrine or ethics. Philippians 2.1-11’s communal values do not
apply. In fact, if applied in doctrinal or ethical matters, they are
destructive for the church.
Some matters are
matters of indifference. People need to
be led by their consciences in such cases, and there is room for different
approaches by well-meaning believers. Knowing
doctrinally that Greek and Roman gods do not exist, one may purchase food in
the market that had been sacrificed to a god.
This was not to participate in idolatry.
If, however, some new convert still struggled to come to the view that
there is only one God and that these gods he had worshipped do not exist,
eating food sacrificed to idols in front of him would not only not be kind but
could reintroduce him to idolatry. In
this case, a matter of indifference could rise to the level of doctrine and
ethics. Note that Paul does not argue
that one person should eat the food and the other person not eat the food when
community is in view but that the one who knows idols do not exist should cease
to eat for the sake of the weaker individual.
This is the argument that we find in 1 Corinthians 8-10.
An application
of these distinctions in Paul between communal, doctrinal, and ethical unity
should guide the Church in general.
Communal unity should not be confused with doctrinal and ethical unity.[1] Applying communal unity to doctrinal and
ethical matters is contrary to Paul’s teaching and undermines doctrine and
ethics in the Church. Mainline
denominations have, however, confused these types of unity. In so doing, they have divided the Church
rather than accomplished communal unity, rejected Christian doctrine, and
introduced immorality, even blessing sinners in their sinful relationships.
[1] An example of this confusion might be found in Bishop Martyn Snow’s
recent misuse of Philippians 2 to advocate for diverse sexual ethics in the
Church of England. Cf. Martyn Snow, ‘LLF
[Living in Love and Faith]: Unity Matters—It Really Matters,’ Church of England Newspaper (6/6/2024); https://www.churchnewspaper.com/llf-unity-matters-it-really-matters/
(accessed 20/6/2024).
Comments