Christian Unity: a hesitant conclusion

[EDIT: For those not expecting this on my blog, please do excuse my brief foray into Christian theology and unity, as I’m preparing for a meeting tonight.  Normal service resumed soon!]

Previously (here) I’ve set-up the problem of evangelical unity on mission teams and suggested that there are 3 ways potentially to solve it.  I use examples of female speaking, power evangelism (healing alongside verbal proclamation) and holding events in pubs.  For models 1 and 2 and 3 see here and here and here.

What model would I use?  I think in the ideal world for Cork city-wide events of 2017, we’d use the third model and seek to love each other generously as below.  But sadly given the battle is still raging within each of our hearts to be other-person-centred, sometimes it must fall back to other models, or whoever is leading the team.

On that note, to conclude, I largely steal from Dave Bish (formerly New Frontiers church planter and about to be pastor at my old church) over at Blue Fish.  He says:

Unity vs. Mission isn’t a choice Jesus gives us.

“Father… I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-21 ESV)

Jesus prayed for a unity that is: • Doctrinal • Relational • Missional

It’s doctrinal – its a unity “just as” the Father and Son are united. Everything we do flows from our personal knowledge of God, as revealed in the Scriptures and experienced by the Spirit’s indwelling.
It’s for relationship – “be one” – not just formal or functional but friendship.
It’s for mission – observation of it makes the gospel believable.

The story of the UCCF is part of a story of the revival of evangelicalism around a renewed confidence in the authority of Scripture and the centrality of the cross sparked by a move of the Holy Spirit at Cambridge University in 1919.

The basis of the UCCF is intended as an inclusive basis – deliberately non-specific about many important issues. I wont pretend it’s always used well – but the intention is to gather not to exclude. We speak of it as The Doctrinal Basis of The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship of Christian Unions. A basis of fellowship, rooted in doctrine. The personal knowledge of God as the basisof relationships for the sake of mission together. This is churches united, family together.

With some variation in phrasing its the same basis as most evangelical churches and the Evangelical Alliance use. Its standard mainstream Protestantism. The goal being to unite as many as possible to give as many as possible the opportunity to respond to the good news of Jesus Christ.

Most division in CU’s is reckoned to concern the CU’s weekly Team Meeting… which represents about 1.5 hours of the 168 hours in the week! Anything that’s only about 1% of our time isn’t something to fall out over.

Today’s top issue is often whether women can preach, followed by the use of charismatic gifts (the latter was the hot issue when I was a student 15 years ago). Neither is unimportant but neither should be allowed to divide our witness. (For what its worth I think in most CUs you see a pro-women speaking pro-charismatic position today… but it comes and goes like the tide, driven by the local church scene in most cases.)

1. Do make much of the gospel. 
2. Don’t pretend these “non-gospel” issues aren’t important. They are. 
3. Do be ultimately generous on “non-gospel” issues. Rather be wronged for the sake of gospel-loving and gospel-mission. Don’t say – Unity only if we do the “secondary things” my way.
4. Do keep it in perspective. No one is obligated to be at everything the CU does – though learning to bear with others a little will do wonders for your Christian character. 
5. Don’t bind your conscience too tightly on “non-gospel” issues – recognise that thoughtful evangelicals come to a range of conclusions on the roles of women, on divine sovereignty, on charismatic gifts, on baptism, on church practice, while still holding firmly to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
6. Do embrace diversity in team meetings and in mission. By all means possible let’s take the gospel to people.

Much as what happens at a weekly meeting matters I’d like to ask whether we’ve crossed the divides that The Cross bridges. A university is inherently elitist – but when you’re in church do you connect with non-students and non-gradautes? What about your non-student neighbours – have you considered how to love the young family or pensioner living on your street? And in and out of University what about those of different ethnicity. A Christian is a global person but are we?

Where the battle for unity really rages…

The real issue is us – as our new hearts battle with our old flesh. The only answer is to repent to the crucified Christ and see more of the Spirit’s fruit in our lives. Death to self and life in Christ is the only way to real unity. The big issues of unity are LOVE ONE ANOTHER… BEAR WITH ONE ANOTHER… PREFER OTHERS AHEAD OF YOURSELF… RATHER BE WRONGED… We might like to fight our corner on x,y,z doctrines of church practice – but love is a primary gospel issue.

I’m the big problem when it comes to unity, because I love things to be done my way. And I seem to find it so easy to say to someone else – “you’re not really welcome here” rather than letting myself feel uncomfortable.

In Christ, I’ll make the first move to relationship.
In Christ, I’ll only compare the worst of me with the best of someone else – rather than vice versa.
In Christ, I’ll go out of my way to be generous.
In Christ, I’ll show hospitality to those unlike me.
In Christ, I’ll be quick to repent, quick to forgive.
In Christ, I’ll be slow to assign bad motives.
In Christ, I’ll rejoice WHENEVER Christ is preached, even if the motives are bad.
In Christ, I’ll assume difference gives me an opportunity to learn before it gives me the opportunity to say I know better.
In Christ, I’ll defend those I disagree with because I’ll have befriended them.
In Christ, I’ll pursue unity so that the world might see the Triune God – the Father at one with his Son.

Christ himself was wronged for us in his death and when we share in his death we begin to get the kind of unity that makes no sense apart from Christ. A unity that exists as we collaborate in mission, standing shoulder to shoulder loving one another. A unity that is not necessarily doing everything together but pulling in the same direction, on the same team – no lone rangers. Christian Unity is participation in the divine life.

We sabotage our mission when we spend our time in-fighting. The answer isn’t divide, it’s learn to love and find our unity in the unity of the Father and the Son. Then the world will see…

Unity model 3: allowing all things in love

Previously (here) I’ve set-up the problem of Christian unity and suggested that there are 3 ways potentially to solve it.  I use examples of female speaking, power evangelism (healing alongside verbal proclamation) and holding events in pubs.  For models 1 and 2 see here and here.  Here I will examine a third approach:

Decide that no matter what the issue, those leading can practice what they want, as long as it is still keeping the main thing, the main thing and within evangelicalism’s bounds. Want a female speaker to give a prophetic utterance in a pub?  Be my guest!  It’s allowing all things in love

What are the advantages of this model?

• It seems to allow for diversity with a unity.  Some would say the other-person-centred-ness of it is the very thing we find in the Godhead.
• it helps people see what and why others believe what they believe

And the disadvantages?

• again, it’s tricky to define evangelicalism in doctrine and emphasis and very easy to condemn others if some fractional thing is seen to be unbiblical in someone elses’ theology/practice
• it is hard.  To be asked to positively support people who are doing things that you’ve consciously decided are not merited or are unbiblical, is hard.  In practice this often ends up with everyone doing their own thing separately and yet claiming unity.

Unity Model 2: finding the middle ground

Previously (here) I’ve set-up the problem of Christian unity and suggested that there are 3 ways potentially to solve it.  I use examples of female speaking, power evangelism (healing alongside verbal proclamation) and holding events in pubs.  The first model can be found here.  Here I will examine a second approach:

Work out what you’ll concede to each other for the sake of the gospel and realising that you’ve already got the main thing in common. Perhaps there’s one event all year that would work amazingly better in a pub than it would elsewhere?  Perhaps female evangelists and female testimonies can be prioritised over and above female Bible teaching?  Perhaps offering to pray for healing after you’ve been chatting to someone may be good, but not as the first emphasis of why you speak to them?  It’s about finding a middle ground.

What are the advantages of finding a middle ground?

• It probably makes everyone feel slightly uncomfortable and doesn’t seem to favour one “side” over another (apart from perhaps those in the middle ground!).
• It seems to be where some lowest common denominator stuff drifts to anyway, by natural.

And the disadvantages?

• it’s quite hard to define what the middle ground is.  What is the spectrum of true evangelicalism?  How can you have a half-way house on some issues?  Does going half-way on healing completely defeat the purpose of it to start with?
• Are people bound by this half-way mark to all start teaching and agreeing with it, or does everyone teach what they think, but then resign themselves to a middle ground for the mission?
• What is the middle ground if 15 people want one thing and 3 want another?  Do you go 1/5 of the way towards the other side?!

Can I further add again, that this is NOT discussing what issue is right, simply how we can unite people on a mission team who are already determined that Scripture says their position is right, on a given secondary issue.

Unity model 1: lowest common denominator

Previously (here) I’ve set-up the problem of Christian unity and suggested that there are 3 ways potentially to solve it.  Here I will examine a first approach:

Unite round the lowest common denominator. In the above issues [edit: gender roles in speaking, power evangelism and events in pubs], we all agree that males can speak, we all agree in evangelism (but not all healing in that way) and we all can hold events elsewhere.  And so we err on the side of caution on all three.

What are the advantages of using this model of working?

• you’re already doing it on some level.  To define who you’re working together with (other evangelicals), you first had to strip things down to a doctrinal basis or confession – things of first importance (cf 1 Cor 15 etc).  Regardless of whether you have it on paper or not, you’ll have in your head a rough group of people and what characterises your willingness to work with them.
• it’s just very easy to work out what to do, and it seems to still allow for a lot of important things to happen.  Missions with tens to hundreds coming to faith have been performed on this basis.

And the disadvantages of it?

• There are always more conservative positions to be found!  For example, does having a Reformed Presbyterian (psalms only) in your group mean that sung worship should be limited to Psalms in CU?  I’ve a Free Presbyterian friend who would go to the street and just read the Bible aloud and be disappointed with most other things.  In practice, this model always leans towards the next one (2) in some ways.
• Much as no-one disagrees with certain practices, it does always mean that the charismatic and less conservative (in style, not necessarily theologically) have to stomach missing out on what they may think is the fulness of God and His ways of working.  To derpive a female of speaking is degrading (so some will say).  To not make space for the Spirit to work miraculously alongside our evangelism, takes much of the point away from it.  And to not allow people to go to a pub actually speaks volumes to non-believers on what type of a God we believe in.

Another reply that is often used to some secondary issues is that gifts are to be performed in the church (services?), and therefore CUs and mission teams can work away without them (similarly female speakers are free to speak).  I’m not sure I buy either of those ways in such a model.  To do that, we’d need to say females couldn’t preach in church services, but can preach to the same audience at any other time of the week on mission?  Similarly with power evangelism, I’m not sure Wimber (from what I understand him to be saying) would say there’s a requirement for elders to be present at such occasions anywhere in scripture.