;)
Can Two Walk Together? (Part I)
Posted by Guest Author in Bible & Theology
Note: This being a rather involved and extended treatise on the subject, I have chosen to break it into three separate sections. Even though some may choose to wait until the final installment to enter the discussion, others may find points they would like to discuss along the way. – Kevin Peacock, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at the Canadian Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and College / IMB Missionary on Stateside Assignment in South Carolina
*****
I love the movie “The Princess Bride,” especially for its witty dialogue. Those familiar with the film may remember Vizzini, the Sicilian criminal “genius” who exclaims “Inconceivable!” in virtually every situation. His cohort the swordsman Inigo Montoya finally states, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” Many times my mind has gone back to that quote, especially when people interpret scripture betraying basic hermeneutical principles. “You keep using that scripture, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
“Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). It is common to use this biblical phrase as a mantra to justify certain limits to Christian unity (e.g. views on church polity, women in ministry, eternal security, baptism, alcohol, tongues, etc.). The early church argued that certain doctrinal limits to an evangelical faith were justified to determine true or false belief. That is why the major points of true Christian doctrine were outlined through church creeds. Even the New Testament itself has a way of highlighting the more cardinal doctrines and the more secondary ones.
But the purpose of this discussion is to examine whether or not Amos’ question means what many imply it means. Scriptural demands for Christian unity are clearly and numerously stated (e.g. John 17:20-23; Rom 15:7; Eph 4:1-6), and any biblical proof text that gives Christians warrant for denying unity with other believers must be carefully examined to ensure that indeed is what the text means. A scripture text that gives Christians a right to break fellowship with other followers of Jesus deserves careful scrutiny. Too much is at stake if the interpretation is wrong.
Context. What did Amos mean by his statement? What is its literary context? As a southerner from Tekoa in Judah, Amos was ministering in foreign territory in the northern territory of Israel. An orator with tremendous rhetorical skills, Amos not only knew how to generate an audience with his messages, but he also knew how to sway them with his logic and bring them to his desired conclusions without the listeners even knowing what was happening. His book begins with a series of messages announcing God’s judgment on the sinful nations. Standing in Israel, Amos vehemently decried the “three transgressions and four” of the surrounding nations of Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, all foreign nations to the Israelites and well-deserving of God’s judgment. I can imagine the cheers getting louder and louder with each mention of another nation outside of God’s covenant whose actions demonstrated without a doubt that they deserved God’s fiercest punishment. The crowd was on Amos’ side. “Let the sinners get what they deserve!” Little did they know that Amos had just painted them into a corner.
The next missile of God’s judgment struck a little closer to home. “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment” (2:4-5). These were the brothers and cousins of the audience in the northern kingdom, but at least they were from another nation than Israel. The prophet could denounce his own people all he wanted. Judah’s sins were based on covenant infidelity rather than for crimes of inhumanity like the previous nations. Nevertheless, let them get what they deserve from God’s hand. “Preach on, Amos!”
Using the seven cheers the crowd gave in agreement to the fact that sinners rightfully deserve God’s judgment, Amos tightened the noose around their necks. “For three transgressions of Israel and for four I will not revoke its punishment” (2:6-16). He then laid out the litany of Israel’s sins against God and their own covenant brethren. I can imagine the stunned silence of the crowd followed by the uncomfortable murmurings of guilty persons who knew that they had been caught.
Amos’ next message followed the same rhetorical genius. He made a strong theological statement designed to draw cheers of agreement from the crowd. “You only have I known/chosen from all the families of the earth” (3:2a). I can imagine a dramatic pause on the part of Amos, followed by the equivalent of scattered “amens” from the audience. God had chosen us, Israel, the offspring of Abraham as His special possession (Exod 19:4-6). This is that precious biblical doctrine of election, the divine choice of God. “We are God’s chosen people. We have a special place in His plan. We are His favorites! Amen, preach on, Amos!”
“Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities” (3:2b). It was because of Israel’s privileged and special status before God that they stood before Him facing His judgment. To whom much is given much will be required, and the blessings Israel had received from the hand of God made them all the more responsible to offer God faithful service. They offered God “rotten fruit” (Isa 5:4); therefore, they faced His judgment. Judgment did indeed begin at the house of God. I can imagine the stunned silence followed by angered protestations that Amos had gotten it all wrong. Certainly Israel’s election exempted them from God’s judgment!
What follows (3:3-8) is Amos’ defense that he indeed was speaking a word from the Lord. He was proving logically that Yahweh (“the lion”) had indeed “roared,” and as God’s true prophet, Amos could do nothing but “prophesy” what God had spoken (v. 8). God would not send such judgment upon His people without first revealing His intentions to “His servants the prophets” (v. 7).
The defense of his prophetic word and ministry is a series of 8th-century-B.C.-Hebrew-“Duh!” statements designed to prove to the audience that an observable effect has a logical cause. Amos’ point was made in the sheer banality of the situation presented. Each answer is clearly evident by the way he stated the question. With each statement the crowd would respond with “Of course!” or “Of course not!,” building to Amos’ point, “Would I say such harsh words unless God had spoken to me?” (the implied answer, “Of course not!”). He began, “Do two people walk together without having met?” (“Of course not!”) “Does a lion roar before it already has its prey in hand?” (“Of course not!”) “Do birds usually frequent an unbaited trap?” (“Of course not!”) “Do traps spring when nothing has triggered it?” (“Of course not!”) “With an enemy army approaching and the watchman sounding the trumpet, do the city inhabitants remain unconcerned?” (“Of course not!”) “Do tragedies happen outside the hand or sovereignty of God?” (“Of course not!) “Would I be speaking this way of God’s judgment upon His chosen people if God had not clearly told me?”
“People, you put two and two together. God has spoken, and I have prophesied what He has said. The fear you feel at this moment over this message is there for a reason. People in their right mind tremble when a lion roars in their face. You have now heard the lion roar. What should your response be?”
To Be Continued Next Saturday …
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
Kevin,
Your assertion that Amos 3:3 is commonly used as a “mantra to justify certain limits to Christian unity” I freely grant, I suppose; but know I do not recall ever personally using it in such a way. Nor do I note many using it either.
Also, for argument’s sake, since your purpose is clearly stated as to examine whether or not Amos’ words means what many imply, we will grant that it implies no such thing.
From there, unfortunately, I cannot see how we can proceed much farther in dialog until you state precisely what you mean by “Christian unity.” For example, you assert that some employ Amos as mantra to justify “certain limits to Christian unity.”
Since I presume you’re arguing the contrary, the implication here, it seems to me, is that there are no limits to Christian unity. If I am incorrect in seeing an implication of such, please state precisely what are valid limits, in your view, to Christian unity.
Later in the post, you do offer, at least implicitly, a clue to your understanding of what Christian unity is and what its absence means. You write:
From this statement, I offer no reservation to your assertion that Scriptural unity is clearly and abundantly mandated to us. In fact, I celebrate such unity.
On the other hand, the final statement above gives reason to pause: “A scripture text that gives Christians a right to break fellowship with other followers of Jesus deserves careful scrutiny.”
It seems you’re implicitly suggesting that the absence of “Christian unity” is indicative of “break[ing] fellowship with other followers of Jesus”, which, accordingly, is dreadfully serious: “Too much is at stake if the interpretation is wrong.”
Am I to understand that Scriptural unity mandates non-denominationalism? Am I also to understand that if one church refuses to allow a person to join because he/she does not meet the baptismal criteria of the fellowship, that because the person is a confessing Christian, the church must accept him/her or else be guilty of “break[ing] fellowship with other followers of Jesus” and, consequently, forfeits “Christian unity”?
I concede I may be completely missing the point of this post and gladly welcome the correction. Yet the examples you offer seem to fit this, I have to admit: “views on church polity, women in ministry, eternal security, baptism, alcohol, tongues, etc.”
I do have to say, Kevin, the list is really an odd one if you mean it to be indicative of those who insist on imposing “limits” to “Christian unity.”
Aside from the fact that to place “alcohol” on a flat line with “eternal security” is just odd, you surely are not suggesting that positions on baptism, church polity, or eternal security among others should impose no “limits to Christian unity”, are you? If so, I’d welcome again that idea teased out.
Please, bear with me just a bit further. First, you assert the “early church argued that certain doctrinal limits to an evangelical faith were justified.” Are you speaking of the post-apostolic church here? Just a bit of clarity.
Secondly, since you suggest “the New Testament itself has a way of highlighting the more cardinal doctrines and the more secondary ones” I’d like a few explicit examples of “secondary” doctrines the NT itself highlights. I think this would go a long way in promoting dialog.
Finally, Kevin, since you contested Amos’ question serving as a principle of limitation on Christian unity, I have to register my reservation about your assumption that John 17:20-23, Rom 15:7, Eph 4:1-6 serve as a principle for unqualified Christian unity. I think, if readers will note the larger framework of each text, they may not offer the evidence you seem to suggest.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Kevin is actually on vacation for the next week or so. I’m sure he will respond as soon as he is available.
Peter,
The thrust of this series of articles is to take Amos 3:3 out of the discussion regarding the possibility of, or impossibility of, unity among God’s people. From my observation this text is (mis)quoted quite commonly towards that end (hence the term “mantra”), poorly translated, removed from its biblical context, and misapplied. If that is not your personal practice, then I rejoice in your use of sound hermeneutics of this passage, and this entire series might be quite boring for you, for it seems that we are already in agreement here.
As for my discussion on Christian unity, its possibility, its extent, and its implications, I would prefer to save that until after my full explanation is presented. For the time being, my intent is to remove Amos 3:3 from any such discussion.
The NT certainly does set limits on unity — those limits focusing upon the difference in “a different gospel” (Gal 1:6) and “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7) that Paul and the apostles preached. In rather strong terms, Paul stated strongly that anyone preaching “a gospel contrary to what you received” should be accursed. Certain definite limits need to be set, specifically on the gospel regarding salvation. Paul’s opponents in Galatians were seeking to add legal requirements to the grace of God in order for one to be saved.
No biblical truth is ever unimportant, but the NT does set a hierarchy of ones that are more important than others. Jesus responded that certain two commandments were “the foremost of all” (Mark 12:28-34), clearly setting these laws of love above the others in the OT. Paul went so far to say that “he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” for “any other commandment is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom 13:8-10). Jesus chided the scribes and Pharisees that they had “neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matt 22:23-24), clearly setting these above their acts of righteousness (such as the tithing), as good as they might have been. Paul focused on certain aspects of the gospel that were “of first importance,” focusing on the atoning death and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-19). Even though all scriptural truth is important, clearly certain scriptural truths hold a priority over others.
I referred to the “early church” in my discussion. This was a two-fold reference. It regarded the struggle the first century church had with setting parameters of Christian doctrine and faithful practice. I see this struggle displayed in the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, “Just how much of the OT law do these Gentile believers need to follow?”
The “early church” was also a reference to “the post-apostolic church” that determined it necessary in its struggle against heresy to delineate between an “orthodox” faith and a heretical one by formulating creeds. Regardless of how one feels about the necessity and correctness of the church creeds, they do present a statement by the early church delineating what they considered the essentials of the gospel and Christian doctrine. They were by no means an attempt to state everything that the scripture teaches. Certain truths were settled nondebatable issues clearly taught in scripture. Other truths, though they may be biblical, are not as clear, do not hold the same priority, and evangelical Christians debated their meaning and importance down through the centuries.
Kevin,
Thanks for the response. That’s fine if you want to wait until you’ve offered "full explanation". Yet, I really only inquire about Christian unity’s definition as I recall.
As for the limits you suggest Paul mentions pertaining to the true and false Gospel, Kevin, I do not think is helpful–at least to me. I understood you were speaking about "the New Testament itself…highlighting the more cardinal doctrines and the more secondary [doctrines]." The Apostle was referring to truth and falsehood, not primary truth and secondary truth.
Nor did I question whether there may exist a hierarchical understanding of doctrine in the NT. Rather I asked for a "few explicit examples of “secondary” doctrines the NT itself highlights." You yourself had a list–"views on church polity, women in ministry, eternal security, baptism, alcohol, tongues, etc." I was anticipating texts to consider which explicitly substantiates any of the above as secondary doctrine. Thus, your response about "weightier matters of the law" I feel offer no insight there.
As for your quotation of 1Cor 15.1ff, again, Kevin, I’m unsure what the point would be. This text is explicit in its prioritizing the gospel. There is no contention concerning this, I do not think. To the contrary, I asked where the "NT itself" highlighted "secondary" doctrine as you asserted in your post. If the answer is Paul’s prioritizing the gospel implies "secondary" doctrine, one can only respond "implies" is entirely different from "highlighting" secondary doctrine.
In addition, if one interprets Paul in 1Cor. 15:1ff to suggest that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are *the* "primary" doctrines of the Gospel, that seems to suggest that other truths are "secondary." Would such "secondary" Gospel doctrines include the deity of Christ? Or the Virgin Birth of Christ?
Now I am sure you believe neither of the two above are secondary. But that is what I am asking: Where does the "NT itself" explicitly "highlight" secondary doctrines about Jesus, the Father, soteriology, or the Holy Spirit? And, of course, I’d like to know concerning your own list–views on church polity, women in ministry, eternal security, baptism, alcohol, tongues, etc." Know also, if you are planning to tease this out, I’ll be glad to wait for your full explanation.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
The reason that I placed the limits on Christian unity at the point of a true and false gospel, is because that seems to be where the NT places them. If our prayer is, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then it is instructive to us to see what the Bible describes as what is being done in heaven. Revelation describes a multitude “from every tribe and tongue, people and nation” (5:9), people who have all “washed their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb,” worshiping and “serving Him day and night” (7:9-17). It is a picture of the redeemed community of God, worshiping and serving together. It is this community who are of “one body and one Spirit,” called “in one hope” of their calling, and can claim “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father” with each other (Eph 4:4-5).
As I see it, the primary question in regards to Christian unity in the NT is this question, “Who has the Father received into His family?” And all of this pertains to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. All those, then, that the Father has received are brothers and sisters in the same family. There are no “distant cousins” that we can pretend are not in the family. As brothers and sisters, we should treat each other as such. We have no right to reject whom the Father has accepted (Rom 14:3), even if we disagree with them. Since this diverse group is unified in salvation, purpose, and service in heaven, then the thrust of our prayer is His will accomplished in heaven should be our pursuit here on earth.
Everything the scripture teaches us is important. It is not the practice of the Bible to delineate between “important” and “unimportant” doctrines. Rather, it teaches important doctrines, then highlights some that are more important than others (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3).
If certain ones are necessary to make us a part of the redeemed community, thus making us “accepted” by God (Rom 14:3), then the primary doctrines have to do with redemption (1 Cor 15:3-19). “How might a lost person become a part of God’s family?” Or what does it mean to have “washed their robes, making them white in the blood of the Lamb”? Upon these, all those who would have a saving faith must hold. Otherwise, they are not a part of His family.
Any other biblical doctrine, though important because it is taught to us in His word, would pale in comparison to these primary issues, and in only that sense would they be “secondary” issues. The listing I gave over which Christians argue and sometimes become disunified with each other, all fit into this second category. They are arguments between “brothers.” Many Christians, especially in the throes of argument, demonstrate by their words and actions that they have forgotten that fact.
Kevin,
Allow me to follow up once more and I’ll probably defer until you’ve posted again. Honestly, I’m not getting your point.
Toward your original post, my greater concern was for a definition of Christian unity which would assist in a better understanding of precisely what you were referring. You said you’d rather wait until the end of your presentation. I thought that somewhat odd but happy to oblige. From my perspective, the current exchange indicates my gut was probably not inaccurate about that.
I also inquired about your statement pertaining to the NT: "…since you suggest “the New Testament itself has a way of highlighting the more cardinal doctrines and the more secondary ones” I’d like a few explicit examples of “secondary” doctrines the NT itself highlights. Again in my second response: "Where does the "NT itself" explicitly "highlight" secondary doctrines about Jesus, the Father, soteriology, or the Holy Spirit?"
In your first response, you offered, as a textual proof, Gal. 1 whereby the Apostle Paul penciled a hard-line between a true and false Gospel, which, in my view, hardly qualifies as a text on Christian unity.
Instead, it is indicative of an incontrovertible line between believer and unbeliever not between believer and believer. Or between absolute truth and absolute heresy not primary truth and secondary truth which you emphatically stated in your original post: "Even the New Testament itself has a way of highlighting the more cardinal [primary] doctrines and the more secondary ones." Thus I still remain confused why you think this text helps us in our exchange.
The original focus on "primary" and secondary"doctrines, however, seems to have been replaced in your second response by "important" and "unimportant" or perhaps "less important": "Everything the scripture teaches us is important. It is not the practice of the Bible to delineate between “important” and “unimportant” doctrines. Rather, it teaches important doctrines, then highlights some that are more important than others (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3)."
No one argues–at least I most certainly do not–that the Bible teaches unimportant doctrines. Hence, we can lay that safely aside. It’s the "less important than" doctrine ("more important than" doctrine obviously implies such) toward which I twice asked above that still hangs in the air without a clear response: Where, in the NT, does it explicitly highlight "less important than" doctrines?
You wrote the Scriptures "highlights some that are more important than others" it is true. But my understanding of your original post was that both primary and secondary doctrines are highlighted: "the New Testament itself has a way of highlighting the more cardinal doctrines and the more secondary ones"(emphasis mine). Finally, you conclude: "As I see it, the primary question in regards to Christian unity in the NT is this question, “Who has the Father received into His family?"…the primary doctrines have to do with redemption (1 Cor 15:3-19)…Any other biblical doctrine, though important because it is taught to us in His word, would pale in comparison to these primary issues, and in only that sense would they be “secondary” issues."
Laying aside the theo-philosophical reservation I possess in making the core question on Christian unity about who the redeemed are rather than Who the Redeemer is, if we used 1Cor. 15:3-19 exclusively as our measuring stick for "primary doctrine" as you suggest, making "Any other biblical doctrine, though important… pale in comparison…"the untold complications of unraveling such a bowl of theological spaghetti would be boggling.
I have already suggested the Apostle made no mention of Christ’s deity in 1Cor. 15:3-19. Is His deity one of those "Any other biblical doctrine[s]"? If it is not, surely the Virgin Birth of Christ is, since, so far as I know, it’s only mentioned twice in the Gospels, but not once in the rest of the NT. That cannot qualify for "primary" status, can it?
If I am incorrect about the Virgin Birth, we can consider the Trinitarian nature of God as secondary, can we not? At least the Virgin Birth is explicitly referenced. The Trinity possesses no explicit reference at all. We gain such doctrine by purely implicit exegesis. Is the Trinitarian nature of our Almighty therefore secondary, since it receives not one explicit "highlight" in the NT?
You said that the list from your original post about which I inquired would all fit the "secondary" filter: "The listing I gave over which Christians argue and sometimes become disunified [sic] with each other, all fit into this second category." But if the measuring stick is 1Cor. 15 and/or Gal 1 with a true/false Gospel, why even make a list at all? There is no need. All else is "less important than" doctrine. The issue is definitively settled were that the case.
I trust your day a gracious one. With that, I am…
Peter
Kevin
I apologize for the corny format of the last comment. When I sent it, the viewing screen showed it as fine. It was not “chopped up” like it actually posted. I hope you can make sense of it.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I believe I have made myself quite clear regarding my stance on the bounds of Christian unity — issues delineating the family of the redeemed. A person who holds the primary doctrines, those that make someone regenerate, make that person “accepted” by God (Rom 14:4). Everything else is a family argument.
I probably don’t need to coach you in which doctrines are necessary for salvation. In a multitude of ways such as repetition, restatement, literary highlights and focus, thematic development, and verbal statements of something being primary, scripture highlights these doctrinal indispensables. When the scripture highlights issues as “most important,” everything that falls outside of that category fits into another category.
Your question, “Why make a list at all?” makes my point. Over what issues are “Christian brothers” willing to be divided? Is this the way of Christ? The scriptural commands regarding unity are for unity among “brethren.” If we are indeed Christian brothers, does not our scripture demand that we find a way to be unified?
A couple of requests to keep the dialogue on a friendly level. First, if I avoid answering one of your questions, that is by personal choice and by design. Please give me the grace not to go in certain directions you may desire. I trust this will not become a point of division between us.
Second, my day will be much more “gracious” without your highlighting spelling or grammar discrepencies on a public forum — especially when my communication is clear. Such actions come across as condescending and beneath friendly dialogue.
Now, I have spent enough of my anniversary holiday in this conversation. I will resume it next week when I am at my desk with a dictionary handy. For now, I am off to spend some time with my wife.
Kevin,
Just one quick point, if I may, and I’m signing out of this conversation. Perhaps others will log on to your next post and give you some good interaction. If I want to make a point, I’ll probably just pick it up myself in a post.
Your assertion that my question–”Why make a list at all?”–”makes [your] point” hardly makes sense, Kevin. If one pragmatically takes this seriously, we’ve just effectively undermined any rationale for ecclesial boundaries whatsoever.
Now, in signing off, as for your advice in keeping things “friendly,” first, not only did I ask one question to which you chose, for your own reasons, not to address, I asked a series of questions you did not even acknowledge, much less answer. But I don’t think I was whining about such as you appear to me, at least, to imply.
At any rate, that’s fine with me. I agree with you. One should only answer questions one deems worthy of an answer.
Unfortunately, as for your assertion that my “highlighting spelling or grammar discrepencies on a public forum — especially when [your] communication is clear…come[s] across as condescending and beneath friendly dialogue” is, for my part, Kevin, subtle but insulting jab. Out of perhaps 15-20 quotes I offered of your words, I used “sic” a single time.
I really have little time to deal with such hyper-sensitivity, my brother. I do my best to address issues as I think I have done here. Why you choose to get personal is your business, but I’m just not interested in any conversation which exploits such.
Nonetheless, I can tell you, while I am certainly not above condescension, neither am I in the habit of pettily pointing out someone’s misspelled word as a means to project a superior attitude over them. Such a thought is, to me, both ridiculous and juvenile.
Nor should it escape one’s interest that, by and large, I make my groceries and mortgage as an editor. I’d like to think, or at least, have the benefit of a doubt, that the “sic” was placed there more of habit in a valid attempt to be accurate than unholiness as a vain expression of arrogance.
I trust I’ve been just as clear as you. I wish also your time with your wife is a wonderful moment for you both.
With that, I am…
Peter