“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (Part 1)

|

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”: Developing a theological framework for assessing and responding to theological diversity in Christian ministry.

Synopsis

This paper argues that agreement on what is essential can only come through a deepening agreement on how the gospel message gives structure to all other beliefs. Put simply, maturity in this area is to understand how the declaration ‘Jesus is Lord’ can be extended to the horizons of our belief and action.

Starting with an exploration of the gospel itself, we develop a theological framework that grounds the ideas of authority, church and unity in the gospel. We argue that the gospel is a declaration of authority, calling men and women under the Lordship of Jesus and hence into the church. Unity is defined in relation to the Trinity and eschatology. We consider how the church can be both united and diverse.

With the gospel as our frame of reference, we develop ways of judging how a particular error will distort this framework, through the application of four criteria: the gospel, Bible, credal and catholicity principles. We then examine four key terms used in describing doctrinal diversity, showing the breadth of their usage and critiquing their application in inappropriate contexts.

Finally we apply this framework to consider principles for responding to doctrinal diversity in Christian ministry. We conclude by returning to our slogan: ‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity’. We demonstrate that without both a clear framework and definition of terms, it has limited application.

Outline Of Argument

Introduction

Section A: Developing A Gospel Framework

  1. The Gospel and Authority
    1. Jesus is Lord
    2. Jesus Rules By His Word
  2. The Gospel and the Church
  3. The Gospel and Unity
    1. Unity and Trinity
    2. Unity and Eschatology
    3. Unity and Diversity

Section B: Applying This Framework To Doctrinal Diversity

  1. Growing in Discernment
    1. Criteria for Assessing Difference
      1. The Gospel Principle
      2. The Bible Principle
      3. The Credal Principle
      4. The Catholicity Principle
    2. Describing theological diversity—Definitions
      1. Adiaphora
      2. Essentials
      3. Gospel Issues
      4. Primary versus Secondary Issues
  2. Responding To Doctrinal Diversity
    1. Unite Around Truth
    2. Tolerate An Agreed Degree of Breadth
    3. Listen Carefully
    4. Respond Proportionately
    5. Speak Truth in Love
    6. Discern the Context

Conclusion:

‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity’?

Introduction

“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

Here we have a statement that anyone can own. Who would dare to question its wisdom?

It resonates with our sense that people just need to get a sense of balance and tolerance. What’s more it is apparently pro-unity, pro-liberty and pro-charity. What more could we want?

The slogan works until we find we actually need to use it on someone who disagrees with us. Then we realise its says everything, and nothing. The reason for this, is that it is premised on an agreement on what is essential and what is not—and that can only come from a larger framework.

Our thesis is that agreement on what is essential can only come through a deepening agreement on how the gospel message gives structure to all other beliefs. Put simply, maturity in this area is to understand how the declaration ‘Jesus is Lord’ can be extended to the horizons of our belief and action.

For this to proceed, we must give content and shape to our understanding of the gospel. We must become increasingly familiar with the way gospel concepts rely upon and connect to each other, creating a kind of ‘gospel logic’. Exploring the inner relations of gospel concepts helps us to see how additions or subtractions to this framework will distort the whole. Accordingly, what follows is an application of the gospel to the question of doctrinal diversity.

Our approach has three parts:

Firstly, we will develop a framework, establishing a centre in the gospel and connecting it to our understanding of authority, church and unity.

Secondly, with the gospel as our frame of reference, we will consider to what extent a particular error will distort this framework. We will propose defined criteria for making this judgement and audit the language commonly used in describing doctrinal diversity. Thirdly, we will consider how this can be applied in areas of doctrinal diversity and evaluate the slogan ‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity’.

Section A: Developing A Gospel Framework

1. The Gospel and Authority

Jesus is Lord

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised
him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9 NIV)

The Lordship of Jesus is the shortest summary of the gospel we have.1 Of course, we must recognise that it is a summary statement, not a definition, and must be interpreted from within the framework that it is taken. The Jesus who is Lord must be the Jesus of Scripture, for our only access to him is through the words there.2 To define the gospel outside of this context will inevitably distort it.

The gospel proclaims authority. It is a claim, which extends to the political and cannot be quarantined to the ‘religious realm’.3 The gospels show this at a number of levels, for instance, in Luke’s birth narrative Jesus is announced as ‘Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2:11) and is accompanied by a vast host (read: army) of angels. The implicit comparison to Caesar Augustus portrays Caesar as a mere functionary in God’s larger plan of salvation (Luke 2:1 cf Acts 2:23-24), with his census merely setting the stage for the arrival of the main actor. In contrast, explicitly in Matthew we have the claim to all authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18).4

The resurrection is rightly understood as a vindication of his Lordship (Acts 17:31). By the resurrection, ‘God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36). 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 connects resurrection and kingship. To reign over absolutely everything must include death itself. Therefore the resurrection of Jesus is a vindication of his royal credentials.

The Jewish way of expressing Jesus’ Lordship is to use the terminology of ‘the Christ’,5 which grounds his authority in the model of Israelite monarchy and the eschatological promises of a universal king who will reign without end6. This fits with Mark’s presentation of Jesus, where the gospel is the announcement of the kingdom:

“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God7 is near. Repent and believe the good news8!” (Mark 1:15)

The appropriate response to this announcement is repentance and faith.9 The gospel is not simply an announcement of information, but a summons to action.

We note that some gospel summaries, such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, focus more on the deeds of Jesus than his identity (it covers his death for sin, burial, resurrection and appearances to witnesses). This can be explained if we see the deeds of Jesus as a manifestation of the kingdom. John Dickson, helpfully distinguishes between the theme of the gospel (the Kingdom of God) and the content of the gospel:

“…the core content of the gospel is the work of God’s appointed king, Jesus. Through his birth,
miracles, teaching, death and resurrection, God’s kingdom has been manifested. Telling the
‘gospel’, then, involves recounting the deeds of the Messiah Jesus.”10

This fits with the presentation of Jesus in the Gospels that narrate his life with a view to helping the reader correctly identify Jesus11, whilst having a clear focus on the key events that define his work. Hence, the Gospels both identify the king and explain his work, which centres on the cross. It also makes sense of the way Romans 1:1-4 introduces Jesus as the promised king and then proceeds to unpack his work. Jesus’ person and work are closely held together in both the Gospels and Paul’s presentations.

The object of our faith is the promise of God held out in the gospel. Hence the essential nature of the gospel is promissory.12 This promise comes to us in verbal form in the written words of Scripture. For our purposes, faith needs to be rightly related to our doctrine of revelation. Faith is fundamentally trust in a promise and hence is only as good in so far as the promise is reliable. When this is all put together, it follows that faith is only possible with a clear and reliable promise to trust, and a clear promise is only possible with a clear and reliable word from God.13 Undermining either the reliability or clarity of the words of Scripture always undermines faith itself, as we shall see below.

To summarise, the gospel announces the king by asserting his rule and declaring his deeds; the appropriate response is repentance and faith.

Jesus Rules By His Word

Acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus is clearly a recognition of authority. Yet, how does this authority operate today?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, our proposal is that we experience his authority in the same way that we receive the gospel: through the verbal revelation recorded in the Scriptures. Thus when the Bible speaks, Christ speaks by His Spirit. In this, the Bible is unique, for it is not simply a record of God’s dealing with others, but addressing us personally. This is evidenced, for instance, in the way that Hebrews applies Psalm 95 to contemporary believers.14

How the Bible is authoritative is a question beyond our scope. Suffice to say that not every command is to be directly applied to Christians. We need to consider how every part of the Bible expresses the authority of Christ over the believer. This is not a concession, rather it broadens the authority to include the wide variety of genres in Scripture. Any view that cannot account for this breadth is actually narrowing the authority of the Scriptures over us.

This connection between Word and authority is crucial. Scripture provides a source of authority that is both objective and personal. It gives immediacy to Christ’s rule, for it asserts more than the mere truthfulness of Scripture’s assertions. Rather, it is the means by which Christ actively rules His people, here and now. Teachers do not stand in for Christ, for Christ is both present by His Spirit and ruling through His Word. Indeed there are times when Christ even judges a congregation directly and temporally (1 Cor 11:30). A teacher’s authority comes only from declaring Christ’s Word to the gathering, which they themselves also stand under. Yet, when they rightly declare the Scriptures, they carry the full weight of authority, for they invoke the authority of Christ himself. It is not surprising then that in the context of congregational teaching of the Scriptures, the New Testament holds teaching and authority together.15

Granted that we are correct in asserting that Christ rules us directly through his Word, we can work backwards to our doctrine of Scripture. Only some, and not all, approaches Scripture give rise to this kind of immediacy. Note we are not seeking to prove or defend these here, but simply saying that they are necessary conditions for Christ’s direct rule by His Word. Scripture therefore must be:

  1. Entirely reliable. If faith is trust in a promise, then a promise is only as good as the reliability of the words that bring it. If only parts of Scripture are reliable, faith is denied. Furthermore, it would require another authority (a higher authority) to decide which sections are reliable and which aren’t. Indeed it could be argued that faith without a reliable source is inevitably idolatrous, for it places trust in something other than the God who is there—and we are left worshipping a golden calf.If this point is true, then two corollaries can be made. Firstly, it denies the possibility that the Scriptures only contain or bear witness to the Word of God16; rather, they are the Word of God. Secondly, it denies the practice of looking within the Scriptures to select sections that constitute God’s immediate and personal Word to me—for all Scripture is immediate and personal. That is not to suggest that each part is equally applicable in every circumstance, but is does deny the effective formation of a canon within the canon.
  2. Clear. A reliable message that could not be understood, could not sustain faith. A promise can only be received if it is rightly perceived. It must be stressed that clarity does not imply an effortless, infallible communication process or that Scripture is uniformly simple to comprehend. Rather it asserts that in principle it is worth returning to the text of Scripture, because that is where God voice can be clearly heard.17The Church of Rome effectively denies the clarity of the text by asserting that the teaching authority of the church is required to safely guide the believer in their reading of it. However, this effectively moves the authority from the text to the interpreter. The Protestant version of this error is to hold that a text is unclear if the majority of Christians cannot agree on its meaning. Both have an undernourished view of clarity.Often the demonstrable lack of agreement between Christians on issues is pointed to as a defeater to this approach. Yet this conclusion does not follow. There are a whole range of reasons that could account for disagreement other than the lack of the clarity in Scripture, not least of all our sinfulness in resisting the claims of Scripture, consciously or unconsciously.

    The Scripture itself suggests that some things are difficult to comprehend (2 Pet 3:16). Yet this does not deny clarity unless we are defending a naïve clarity of an instantaneous, infallible communication path from the text to the reader. The Bible expects that clarity will at times be ‘hard fought’ clarity, a fact anticipated by the provision of teachers to assist us.

    We stress this understanding of claritas Scripturae because of its pastoral implications. Failure to uphold the clarity of Scripture will inevitably lead to doctrinal minimalism and undermining of the rule of Christ. If in principle God at times speaks an unclear word, then authority must shift sideways. The process of discerning God’s voice moves to the question ‘Which parts are clear and which are not?’. The most common solution to this question is found in a democratic, consensus approach.18 When confronted with the Word of God, people could fairly question whether this was an area we should expect clarity on or not, rather than being driven back to the text of Scripture.

    Yet, as most concede, that the Scriptures are clear unto salvation, why could that not be extended to God’s stated purpose in providing us the Scriptures: to bring us to complete maturity?

  3. Sufficient—a Word that did not address areas that mattered would not allow for faithful living. Many arguments about the authority of the Bible turn out to be arguments about its sufficiency. The Roman Church for instance holds to the infallibility of the Scriptures, but denies their sufficiency by adding decrees necessary for godliness, but not contained within the Bible.Positively, this principle suggests anything necessary for godly living is contained in the Bible.19 Negatively, it suggests that things not implicitly or explicitly addressed in the Bible are rightly matters of freedom.20This understanding does not preclude other authorities making decrees that are binding on Christians. The Scripture itself legitimates subordinate authorities. Yet there is a distinction in authority. This is reflected in O’Donovan, in the distinction between ecclesial and ecclesiastical authority. Ecclesial authority derives from the Word of God; ecclesiastical authority is subordinate. The sanction of withdrawal of fellowship, O’Donovan argues, must only be applied in response to the refusal of God’s word, and not to the refusal of the church-political order.21

2. The Gospel and the Church

The church is the product of the Spirit, working through the preaching of the Word, producing faith in the elect. Our doctrine of church is given shape by our doctrine of the Word. Words are not merely informational, but relational—they establish relationship. The gospel comes as a word of promise and the appropriate response is trust in that promise. Whilst it is true that the Spirit is not to be identified with the Word, it is also true that it cannot be separated. Calvin is right to say to assert an ‘indissoluble bond’ between Spirit and Word.22

Calvin’s marks of a true church are ‘the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s instruction’.23 It does not take much to see that within Calvin’s framework sacraments are not a second mark, but a specific form of hearing the Word—where the promises of the gospel are preached visually. Thus, the church is the Spirit-evoked response to the preaching of the Word. A church is fully formed and genuinely ‘catholic and apostolic’ wherever the Spirit creates faith through the Word.24 A gathering of people around the Word of God in faith is not a part of the church, but a fully formed expression of church.

Volf rightly asserts ‘Salvation and the church cannot be separated’.25 This is because we are saved from sin and into the church. Throughout the Scriptures, scattering is a form of judgement (such as Babel, or the exile), whilst gathering is what is promised in the end time (Deut 30:1-4; Ezek 37:21): ‘to bring them together and make them one’ (John 11:52). Jesus does this by his death (Eph 2:15-16), hence ‘gathering’ (εκκλησια) is the most prominent term we are given to describe the redeemed people of God.

This gathering is heavenly and eschatological. Hebrews 12 takes the gathering theme of Mount Sinai and expands it, moving from an earthly to a heavenly focus. This heavenly gathering sums up the Old Covenant shadows of Zion, the city in which God would dwell:

“But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.” (Hebrews 12:22-23a)

The invisible church is given visible expression whenever Christians gather in Christ’s name. He promises to be truly present (Matt 18:20). Hence, each local church gathering is the church of God in that place. It is where we see the expression of the heavenly gathering now, a manifestation of the wisdom of God to the spiritual powers (Eph 3:10).

The heavenly location should prevent us equating institutions with the church. The church that Jesus will build (Matt 16:18) is not the Church of Rome, but the heavenly Jerusalem. The heavenly reality is only seen with the eyes of faith. Viewed spiritually, the local gathering is participating in this heavenly reality, despite the separation of space, time, sin and death. Just as we cannot see the forgiveness of sin, but take it on the strength of a promise, so with our belief in the ‘holy catholic church’26

It is an invisible eschatological reality that will one day become clear. Thus the word ‘church’ is nearly always in the plural in the New Testament, because it is referring to the local gathering in a particular location.27

The connection between Word and Church prepares us to think about unity, for the Church is both brought into being and brought into unity through the proclamation of the Word. A right connection between the invisible Church and its visible expressions protects us from seeking institutional unity as the expression of our unity in Christ.

3. The Gospel and Unity

To provide a gospel shaped framework for responding to diversity, one key area of discussion must be the nature of spiritual unity. We shall see that the unity arising from the gospel is grounded in the Trinity; that it is an expression of the eschatological reality established through union with Christ; and how both of these observations shape our response to doctrinal diversity.

Unity and Trinity

“My prayer is …that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.” (John 17:20-23)

The church is not to be seen as a separate entity; rather it is united by faith into the Trinity itself. By faith we are united to Christ. Christ’s double homoousion unites himself to humanity and humanity to God. He fully participates in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14) as the ‘one mediator between God and men’ (1 Timothy 2:5). Because the gospel call for repentance is more than merely ethical, but also relational,28 we are called into fellowship with the Son (1 Corinthians 1:9) and hence with the Father (1 John 1:3) and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14, Phil 2:1). The church is incomprehensible apart from a trinitarian understanding:

“If Christian initiation is a trinitarian event, then the church must speak of the Trinity as its
determining reality”29

This trinitarian shape of salvation defines the church’s catholicity. We are brought into the unity of the Godhead:

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Hence the Creeds’ exposition of the doctrine of God is so basic to all other belief. Not only must we agree on the God that we are worshipping, but salvation is defined in Trinitarian terms. To misrepresent the triune nature of God or the double nature of Christ seriously undermines the coherency of the gospel.30

Thus, the Trinity grounds all spiritual unity and hence defines our relations to one another. Just as there is one Lord, one Spirit, one God and Father of all, there is only one body, which we have entered into by the one baptism (in the Spirit). It is interesting to note that the Nicene Creed’s Trinitarian shape is concluded with reference to the holy catholic church. Torrance helpfully suggests that ‘the clauses on the Church do not constitute an independent set of beliefs’ but follow on from belief in the Father, Son and Spirit.31

Unity and Eschatology

Eschatology establishes the dynamic, which drives the move from doctrinal diversity to a common mind, as an expression of our unity in Christ. It is the indicative, spiritual reality (Eph 4:4-6), which grounds the imperative to ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit’ (Eph 4:2). We are not to lie ‘for we are members of the one body’ (Eph 4:25). Rather we are to speak in a way that is ‘helpful for building others up, according to their needs’ (Eph 4:29). This is not simply a call for positive or kind words, but building in the sense used earlier in the chapter ‘so that the body of Christ may be built up, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God’ (Eph 4:12). All our actions are with a view to bringing the eschatological reality into the ‘now’.

This raises the classic tension between the ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ of Christian experience. This is not just the delay of an anticipated outcome, but the awareness of the reality of the spiritual reality now, whilst recognising it will not be fully our experience until then. In short, what is seen by faith now, will give way to sight then.

Unity can therefore be thought of as corporate sanctification. It is our goal because it is our present spiritual reality. We need to give expression to that reality. This parallels any other area of sanctification. We strive for holiness because we already are holy. Progressive sanctification must be grounded in definitive sanctification achieved at the cross.32

Having this eschatological perspective shapes our approach to doctrinal diversity in a number of ways.

Firstly, it warns us against unrealistic expectations this side of heaven. Whilst we must desire and ‘make every effort’ to maintain unity, we recognise it is something we will not achieve in this life.

Secondly, the ecumenical dream of organisational unity is both unrealistic and misguided. Given our sinfulness, unification will be either on the wrong grounds (structural rather than spiritual unity) or it will be achieved through coercion, not persuasion. This will not result in true spiritual unity, merely pretence.

Thirdly, right understanding of eschatology drives us to work hard at coming to a common mind. The goal of history is to gather all things under Christ (Eph 1:10) and we are part of that reality by faith. Unity in ‘the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God’ (Eph 4:13) is what we aim for. Whilst we will argue later for a degree of ‘comprehensiveness’ expressed in our assent to work within the bounds of various statements of faith, we must not see this as static. Closer union is something we must continually pursue. We should be worried for instance, if a congregation has the same degree of diversity in belief in three years as it does now.

Fourthly, doctrinal diversity is something we expect, but not something we glory in. We may rejoice in the fact that people are not coerced into acceptance of a ‘party line’. We may rightly prefer diversity to enforced conformity. Yet, if there is an issue that Scripture speaks to unambiguously, diversity is a reflection of the incompleteness of God’s work in us. We must keep on returning to the text of Scripture to see whether we can come to a common mind. We are urged on in the knowledge that unity is the goal, which Christ will bring about. Tongue-in-cheek, Roger Nicole once wrote to a theological adversary:

“I do find comfort in the thought that although you may oppose Calvinism on this earth, you will be a Calvinist when you get to heaven.”33

The means by which we bring about unity must be open and truthful (2 Cor 4:1-6). The basic tools are prayer and proclamation in the service of persuasion, not argument in service of coercion. Contending for the faith (Jude 3) must never be a cover for contentiousness. Godly argument must never justify an argumentative character that so often goes with youthfulness (2 Tim 2:22-26).34 Humility, gentleness, patience and forbearance (Eph 4:2) are the soil in which this grows and the leader must exemplify them (1 Tim 3:1-7, Titus 2:6-9).35

Fifthly, false teaching is a sin that divides the church by undermining the gospel on which it stands. Romans 14 shows us that inauthentic action is always wrong. Yet, authenticity of action is not the only criterion for evaluation. We must recognise that false teaching destroys even if sincerely believed by the teacher.

Ephesians 4:1-16 is the clearest passage addressing God’s program for our maturing towards unity. We have summarised it under three headings: unity, diversity and maturity:

  1. 1. Unity (1-6) Unity is something given to us; we are to strive to maintain it (v3). The context is of course not denominational, but local. If fact there is not a single reference in the New Testament to ‘division’ between churches, only within churches.36 The unity of the Trinity forms the context for our salvation into the one body. We enter into the fellowship of the Trinity through reception of this one faith (v4-6). This forms a powerful polemic against the Jew/Gentile divide, which was abolished at the cross (Eph 2:14-18).
  2. 2. Diversity (7-11) Interestingly, whilst the language of diversity is used positively in the New Testament, it is never applied positively to diversity of belief. This is in contrast to the modern usage that implies that diversity is inherently good, regardless of the content. Here, the diversity is in gifts—grace as Christ has apportioned it—seen in the gift of various teaching ministries given to the church.37 This diversity of gifts serves to bring the church to maturity, which is unity. Hearing God’s Word is both the entry point to the kingdom, and the necessary means for growth to maturity.
  3. 3. Maturity (12-16) Positively, maturity is unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God (v13). Negatively, this is contrasted with ‘infants tossed back and forth by the waves’ (v14). O’Brien notes the contrast is not simply between infancy and adulthood, but between one mature person and plural ‘children’ (νηπιοι).38 The means by which we are developed is ‘speaking the truth in love’ (αληθευοντες εν
    αγαπη). αληθευοντες is taken by some in a broader sense of ‘truthing in love’ or ‘living out the truth’. We think it better understood as verbal instruction. The context is a contrast to ‘every wind of false teaching’ (v14), which is shown in the use of the postpositive de taken in an adversative sense (translated ‘instead’ in the NIV). This reading also provides continuity with the discussion of Word gifts in vv7-11.39 Speaking truth in love contrasts with the false teaching characterised by cunning, craftiness and deceitful scheming. Thus, the maturing church is distinctive in both the content and manner of its teaching.

Unity and Diversity

The church is full of diversity. There is diversity of race, class, affluence, age, gender and social standing. Moreover, God has given gifts diversely for the good of the church. Interestingly, in heaven this reality is not flattened into uniformity, but is retained as people from every tribe, nation and tongue are gathered around the throne. Observably, there is also a diversity of understanding of the gospel and its implications. Romans 14 is the key to making sense of how Paul approached this diversity. The controlling theological concepts are: the lordship of Christ (v4-11), gospel freedom in the service of others (v13-21) and the possibility of real unity despite differences on ‘disputable matters’ (v1).40

Paul has advice for both the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ brothers. The ‘strong’ are characterised by a firm grasp of the freedom of the gospel, a position that the ‘weak’ have not yet reached. Paul’s advice is for the ‘strong’ to refrain from looking down on the ‘weak’, and for the ‘weak’ not to judge the ‘strong’.

We suggest the four implications: Firstly, inauthentic action is always sin—I must be convinced that any action I take is permissible, regardless of peer pressure (v23). Secondly, given our weakness, unity demands a tolerance of diversity on ‘secondary issues’.41 Yet even here, it is not a cherished diversity, for built into the Paul’s language is a desire for the ‘weak’ to become ‘strong’. Thirdly, that silence can be appropriate in the face of some error. This is not justification for a ‘conspiracy of silence’ on secondary issues. Love will dictate the way we speak and when we speak. Fourthly, my natural tendency to gravitate towards those I agree with most must be confronted. I must accept into full fellowship all those for whom Christ has died (v9-10).42

Finally, Romans 14 introduces a key theme for our purposes—that of evangelical freedom.43 Put simply, we are reminded that Jesus is the master (κυριος) of each person and they are accountable to him directly. Coercion or peer pressure is therefore always unhelpful, because each believer must be convinced in his or her own mind of the propriety of an action. To act without this would be sin (14:23).

This means that the process of growing our unity must be through persuasion, because consent can only be given, not coerced. All we can do is place the Word of God on the conscience of the believer.

To summarise, we have established a gospel shaped understanding of authority, church and unity. In the next section we apply this framework to the specifics of doctrinal diversity. We will seek to establish criteria for assessing the relative importance of issues as well as auditing the language commonly used in this field.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Footnotes

1 Compare Romans 1:1-4

2 Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002), 49.

3 Oliver O’Donovan, Desire of the Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

4 cf N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (London: SPCK, 2003), 568-570.

5 Mark 8:29

6 2 Samuel 7:11-16; Psalm 2:7-9; Ezekiel 37:24-28

7 η βασιλεια του θεου

8 τω ευαγγελιω

9 μετανοειτε και πιστευετε note that English disguises the fact that believe and faith are cognates here and elsewhere in the NT.

10 Dickson, Promoting the Gospel, 184.

11 Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20; John 6:69, 20:31

12 Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God, 25.

13 Broughton D. Knox, Selected Works: Volume II Church and Ministry Edited by Kristen Birkett. (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 173-175.

14 Hebrews 4:7-19

15 Consider the parallelism in 1 Timothy 2:12 of teaching and authority. This is not to suggest that all teaching has precisely the same type of authority. The nature of the teaching will determine the kind of relationship established between the speaker and the hearer. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is describing the public teaching office of the church; cf Women in the church : an analysis and application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, Grand Rapids, Michigan : Baker Academic, 2005).

16 Barth does this by creating a division between the person of the logos and the inscripturated Word of God; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, tr. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed., 1975), 1/1, 118-119.

17 This section is based on notes and unpublished manuscripts from Mark Thompson ‘The Clarity of Scripture’ (2005 Annual Moore College Lectures).

18 This is reflected in Stott’s book Evangelical Truth. Parallel to the reduction of the scope of clarity in the Scriptures, is a corresponding growth in his adiaphora categories. See the discussion below on adiaphora. John Stott, Evangelical Truth (Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 1999), 71,141.

19 2 Timothy 3:17 “[Scripture is God breathed…] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Whilst true that “man of God” is a technical term referring to teachers like Timothy, it is not necessary to limit it to this work. For Timothy is being instructed in how to lead a church with the Scriptures—so to equip Timothy is to address the needs of all Christians. Scripture gives him everything he needs for this task. This is illustrated in the breadth of topics covered in 1 & 2 Timothy.

20 cf Article 6 of the Thirty Nine Articles.

21 Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 174.

22 Institutes, IV.8.13

23 Institutes, IV.1.9

24 This is reflected in Article 19 of the Thirty Nine Articles: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”

25 Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness. The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.), 174.

26 Hence the Nicene and Apostles Creeds—‘We believe in the holy catholic church’, cf Woodhouse, Unity that Helps, Unity that Hinders, 31.

27 D.W.B. Robinson, ‘Church’ in The New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.; Leceister: IVP, 1982), 205-207.

28 Jensen, The Revelation of God, 61.

29 Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness, 195.

30 Note the Quicunque vult clause in the Athanasian Creed, which asserts that without acceptance of the orthodox faith in the Trinity and incarnation, there can be no salvation. cf. D. Broughton Knox, The Everlasting God: A Character Study of God in the Old and New Testament. (Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1982.), 49.

31 T. F. Torrance, Trinitarian Faith (Edinburgh: Clarke, 1998), 252.

32 David Peterson, Possessed by God (Leceister, England: Apollos, 1995),13.

33 Roger Nicole, ‘An Open Letter to Dr. William Estep’, Founders Journal 29 (Summer 1997), 16 cited in Roger Nicole, Standing Forth: Collected Writing of Roger Nicole (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), 5.

34 cf Mark Thompson, ‘How to have a godly argument’, Briefing 184 (1996):3-8

35 Perhaps this is why ability to manage a family is such a key criteria for leaders. The household is the ideal training ground for these traits.

36 cf John Woodhouse, Unity that helps, Unity that hinders (Sheffield: Reform, 2001), 39.

37 Note the way people are gifts here, not the skills or abilities. This suggests we should develop a far more corporate understanding of gifts. I am God’s gift to you, you are God’s gift to me. My talents are not mine, but yours.

38 Peter O’Brien, The letter to the Ephesians (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999), 308.

39 cf Peter O’Brien, The letter to the Ephesians, 310-311. It should probably be stressed that this is not to privilege one form of speech over another. Our context perhaps makes us leap to reading public preaching here. It certainly includes this, but we must not allow this to control our application. For instance, presumably Paul’s letter writing would fit the category as would singing (Col 3:16).

40 ‘disputable matters’ is the NIV translation of διακρισεις διαλογισμων similarly NASB and Murray, Cranfield and Dunn; the other main possibility is ‘quarrels over opinions’ NRSV, Barrett and Fitzmyer. The latter option removes the suggestion that these are secondary issues. In our opinion, both options are plausible and therefore not too much weight should be put on the term at this point, particularly if we are tempted to read into this traditional understandings of either adiaphora or ‘secondary issues’. The broader context gives us enough information to draw conclusions.

41 It could even be that the weak brother may just be expressing discomfort because of previous associations that cannot be shaken.

42 ‘Secondary issues’ as terminology must be clarified later. Of course, the context here is relations within the Christian community, and it is not attempting to define a standard for those who might teach in the church.

43 Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 115, 163-178.

Comments are closed.