You are hereBlogs / Steve White's blog / When unity is deadly
When unity is deadly
There are a number of movements that flow through Christianity that concern me, but none more than the interfaith movement. To me it is a lot like the hippopotamus. The hippo is a big, docile looking creature - seemingly harmless and almost cute. The startling fact is, however, that hippos are responsible for more human fatalities more year than any other animal on the African continent, including lions!
The interfaith movement is not dissimilar. It looks friendly and cuddly at first glance, but a deeper observation will reveal it as deadly lethal. Why? Because it must always, for the sake of harmony, cover over the one truth that can save humanity. Unity, to supporters of the interfaith movement, is more important than truth. Better to live in harmony than to criticize each other.
However the example that Jesus gives us is a very long way removed from the modern ecumenical movement. He claimed, very boldly, that he was “the way, the truth and the life”, and that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). I suspect that verse isn’t popular amongst interfaith supporters. A saying such as that, if given proper attention, can only lead to disharmony amongst differing faiths. What Jesus was implying was that you cannot be saved and put right with God the Father through anything or anyone but him. What Jesus was implying was that if you follow any religion other than Christianity, you will not be saved. To cover this truth over for the sake of harmony is in fact the most unloving thing we can do for followers of other religions.
Unity is not wrong, in fact it is urged by Paul in particular throughout the New Testament (a major theme in Philippians for example). However unity in the truth of the Gospel is what is urged, not unity for the sake of it. To tell someone who is about to step off a cliff that both you and them are safe together in harmony is more than neglectful, it’s unloving in the extreme. Instead, our responsibility and calling is to speak “the truth in love” (Eph 4.15). Any doctrine or movement that neglects any part of God’s word cannot be doing that.
I suppose the questions I would like to ask regarding unity within the Christian community are as follows: Is true Christian unity something that we do at an organisational level or is it something that God does by His Spirit? That is, are we not in unity now because we have all been baptised by the Spirit into one body? Next question: How many churches are there? Is there but only one? Sure, there are stacks of denominations but Christ has only one Body, does He not - is there but only one Bride (the Church)? I work in an interdenominational (ecumenical) Christian school and I am privileged to work with brothers & sisters in Christ who attend churches different than I. We differ on some issues, we do have our differences, but we do love each other. It is the Gospel that drives us in unity.
Which brings me on to the subject of interfaith (religions combining in a common cause). After the last Bali bombing a number of Sydney's religious leaders met together publicly in a common cause for peace. Peter Jensen (an evangelical) represented the Anglican community. I have no problem with this as they speak as leaders of various 'people' communities who live under the flag of one nation.
I, personally, have organised Christians to visit a Jewish synagogue and to meet with the local Jewish community. Interfaith?
However, (by the way, I do teach 'interfaith' issues to senior students), I believe that much that goes under the banner of interfaith is a huge cause for concern. Why? Because my love for those within different religions must see them as 'lost' ie not in relationship with God. Ouch! The Scriptures declare that all humanity is estranged from God apart from a relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. His Good News (Gospel) is to be preached to all peoples regardless of religious convictions. Interfaith denies this, therefore it is largely anti-Christian, anti-Gospel, anti-Jesus.
To be involved in many interfaith initiatives is the equivalent of denying the work of Christ on the Cross (religions don't work! that is why God Incarnate died on a cross) and also to deny the one life giving message to Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians etc. How can I truly love these people and be involved in interfaith?
To conclude, and it does need to be said, there are some individuals who use interfaith for their own agendas. There is a very dark side to this - maybe for another time.
Thanks for these thoughts Steve,
How do you see this issue relating to different doctrines within Christianity? To what extent should different Christian perspectives (say catholic compared to anglican) work towards unifying their churches?
Cheers
Thanks Toby - great question and one I constantly struggle with. Not sure that I have the perfect answer, but my line of reasoning looks at those we might consider working together with in 3 groups.
The first group denies the key doctrines of Christianity (Salvation by faith in Jesus, etc). With this group I would have to say I can't have fellowship simply because I don't see them as regenerate, therefore the very basis of spiritual fellowship is missing.
The second group believes in the key doctrines, but wouldn't go along with many important beliefs within Christianity (the sovereignty of God, election, etc). With these I would be happy to call them my brothers and sisters, but think that in many cases working with them would be difficult. If I encourage believers that are under my leadership to unite with those who deny some pretty big truths about Christianity, I run the risk of seeing them taught and influenced in ways that are unhelpful. I'm not saying at that point that I'm not willing to work with them in anything, but that I would have to weigh up each situation carefully.
The third group believes in key and major doctrines, but disagrees on smaller matters. For example, infant or believer baptism, creationism, etc. I realize that for some these are major issues, for me however I would be happy to unite with those who I disagree with on these matters, and think I could do so with integrity.
That's the basic framework that I work in. How that works with Catholics would be difficult, and would depend very much on the individual beliefs of the people involved. If they deny core salvation issues, I couldn’t have fellowship. Unfortunately, I suspect that would be the case with the majority of Catholics. If they agreed with key doctrines, I would still be very cautious partly because of the message it may send out if we did work together. I would be very reluctant to lead people to believe that at core we and Catholics are of the same mind as I don’t think that is the case at all.
With Anglicans, it would very much depend on the nature of the congregation. I trained at an Anglican College in Sydney which was very much evangelical and would have few issues with uniting with many evangelical Anglican Churches throughout the Sydney or Armidale Diocese. In the Newcastle or Grafton Diocese, however, most parishes would fit in the first group and I couldn’t unite with them.
I know it’s an issue that can strike hard at the heart for many of us, and my position would be unpopular in our day and age of tolerance. However I think that the apostle Paul’s example in scripture is very much one of defending the truth that saves us. Galatians would be a great example of that. Hope that’s of some help mate.
Thanks for your thoughts Steve. I guess I'm curious to know in more detail which issues you see as 'key' or vital, and which are more peripheral and how you tell the difference. I like your separation into three groups but I wonder how you decide which doctrines belong in which category. From your response I would summarise:
What other issues would you put into Group One? I have met people who think that Creationism belongs in Group One, how would you respond to that?
Also - What exactly do you mean by regenerate, and election?
Cheers
Thanks Toby,
I think I'd see the following issues as vital: God created us and is the rightful ruler of the world, humanity is in its very nature sinful, we can only be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, Jesus as fully human yet fully God. There are probably a couple more (any suggestions guys?), but those I would consider essential to an understanding of Christianity and any gospel that leaves them out I would have to call a false gospel.
I used the three categories idea as a simple way of explaining the way my head works, but I'd want to be careful being too clinical there. There would probably be a fair bit of swapping between the 2nd and 3rd categories for most Christians - the 1st category is the one that gives us spiritual unity. I think the beliefs that fit into the second category are those that aren't essential for salvation, but are what I'd consider pretty important for Christian maturity.
As far as creationism is concerned, I don't think it has a significant effect on our overall understanding of the way in which God works or the gospel of Jesus. I personally am a 6 day creationist, but I have many friends and leaders that I respect enormously who are theistic evolutionists. The important thing is that we all believe that God created the world. How long he took to do it doesn't seem the important issue. He could do it in whatever time frame he wanted to I'm sure.
Sorry about the jargon - regenerate = Christian. Election is covered here: http://www.christianfaith.com.au/resources/divine-election It's mind blowing stuff, best read or viewed with coffee and plenty of time to absorb and ponder.
Hope that helps,
Steve