Things That Divide Us

The apostle Paul was certainly concerned about the unity of the Church - but unity does not mean to compromise the teachings of Scripture, but to unify around them. Ephesians 4 says:
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.

This shows us that even in our individuality - the grace given to each of us - we can build unity, keeping in mind that oneness we can have in Christ.  But, that unity is to be built on the truth of God's Word, and when there is disagreement, we can go to the Word, not as a tool of division, but a tool to bring unity. When we gain a sense of our belonging to Christ and to one another, we will see His presence expressed through His people as a witness to the world.

+++++

The enemy would like to exploit our different ways of viewing the Scriptures, and one of the key components of withstanding him is to stand on the truth. 1st Corinthians 1 states:
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

Believers in Christ are first and foremost people who have committed their lives to Jesus Christ and have been born again by the Spirit of God.  That is the central focus - the message of the cross and the power of the resurrection.  Adherence to that truth about what saves us is a powerful uniting force, certainly.

But, where we go from there has become a bit, well, murky.  You have some theologians and commentators that begin to describe certain issues as "gospel" issues, but they are ancillary to the gospel itself.  But, that doesn't mean that we should not apply Biblical truth to a variety of issues in our culture, and that is something that The Meeting House is intended to do - to provide content that can inform and challenge Christians to apply a Christian worldview perspective to the world around us.

While each of us may have private interpretations on certain matters, still it should be our goal to apply the Biblical standards to govern our beliefs and if we come to different conclusions, to disagree charitably.

We're not seeing that in the Church, though, especially as it's displayed on social media.  We hear the term, "evangelical," and there are spirited debates about what that has come to mean. And, again, we should be driven by a high view of Scripture. 

There was a blog post making the rounds on social media recently that caught my attention - it divided evangelicalism into six different categories, and seemed to gravitate toward one.  It was posted on the Mere Orthodoxy website, and written by Michael Graham, with Skyler Flowers, who are both in pastoral ministry and possess Masters degrees from Reformed Theological Seminary. 

The authors put forth this hypothesis:

The reality is that while many in the evangelical movement thought their bonds were primarily (or exclusively) theological or missional, many of those bonds were actually political, cultural, and socioeconomic. These political, cultural, and socioeconomic differences have always been there beneath the water line but what has occurred over the last 5-10 years has been the extent to which those values are expressed has been exposed.

I am not necessarily endorsing this article or its analysis, but it does give some food for thought.  It offers six classes within evangelical Christianity, yet three of them are not really in that space. 

Category 1, presumably moving right to left, is the Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelical.  It is defined in this way: "Concerning threats within the church, they have deep worries with the church’s drift towards liberalism and the ways secular ideologies are finding homes in the church. Outside the church, they are concerned by the culture’s increasing hostility to Christianity, most prominently from mass media, social media, and the government." But, in this, the authors contend, there is a "co-belligerency with Christian Nationalism," which is defined as "...a syncretism of right wing nationalism and Christianity..."  Unfortunately, these "fundamentalists" that even some so-called conservatives decry are thought to put love of country or involvement in politics, i.e. "Christian nationalism," above their love for God or fulfillment of the Great Commission.  For it is the enlightened ones over in Category 2 that seem to have the corner of the evangelistic market. 

Category 2, the author's choice, is Mainstream Evangelical.  The implication here is that to be fundamentalist is to not be mainstream.  I think it's clear where the authors stand.  They write:

Historically this term has been Protestants who hold to the Bebbington Quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. The emphasis for this group is on the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Concerning threats within the church, they share some concern for the secular right’s influence on Christinaity, including the destructive pull of Christian Nationalism, but are far more concerned by the secular left’s influence and the desire to assimilate since the world still remains so hostile.

Then you have the third category, Neo-Evangelical. These individuals could be considered missions-minded, yet shy away from the term, "evangelical," and are concerned that the Church doesn't handle "race and sexuality in helpful ways," whatever that means.  I suspect that this would include the adoption of critical race theory and LGBTQ acceptance. 

I think this article may reflect a common perception of Christianity in these times, and can also give us understanding of the tension in the body of Christ, especially between the 1s and 2s, even though the authors seem to think that the 1 vs. 3 tension is more pronounced. 

There are a lot of terms here, but let's get to the bottom of today's commentary - we should not be known by our labels, but by our devotion.  We have to stand against social influences on the Church that are not Biblical and embrace the teaching of Scripture to determine our worldview and response to the world.  

And, the world and the media are amplifying the conflict between Christians.  News reporting on the latest Southern Baptist Convention meeting, even in the Christian space, says that the Convention was saved from a "takeover" from the hard right.  I see it as an attempt by those who would be called "fundamentalist" to prevent a theological drift - there are debates occurring within churches across America concerning how to deal with racial issues, with some embracing the tenets of critical race theory, which is undergoing a societal rejection in some areas.  There are debates about the role of women and the degree to which women should serve in church leadership.  There are debates about the devotion to country and the degree to which Christians should participate in politics.  

One thing we must recognize - we have to reject ideas and worldviews that do not have a basis in Scripture.  And, we have to seek to unify around Scripture's authority, even if we may have some points of disagreement.  Unity in the Church doesn't come through being nice to one another, although charity and compassion are characteristic of the presence of Christ; unity comes through our adherence to the head and refusal to allow secondary issues to divide us.  The enemy is working overtime to hurt the witness of the Church, and we have to be known by our willingness to surrender to Christ, to love Him and to love other people.  There was a phrase used during the recent SBC: "the world is watching."  And, I'm not sure if what they saw in some instances was compelling.  I also submit that the cause isn't helped by attendees going to secular media and spotlighting the division and differences within the Convention and perpetuating an "us vs. them" mentality.  We should be more concerned with positioning the sufficiency of our Savior rather than promoting our particular theological stance.