;)
Can Two Walk Together – Part III
Posted by Guest Author in Bible & Theology
[Note: This is Dr. Kevin Peacock's fiinal installment in his three-part discussion on the interpretation of Amos 3:3. For your reference, please read his first two installments from Saturday, September 20, and Saturday, September 27.]
God’s Purpose of Unity. What does this passage in Amos say about unity among God’s people? Little, if any. He merely used an illustration of two people “walking together” with a possible hint of agreement in direction. To try to make the statement refer to unity of belief among the two is a hermeneutical stretch at best and dishonest at worst. Many such users of this text advocate a kind of unity based upon conformity. People must be “agreed” in order to be unified. They are then quick to describe the bounds of conformity for unity to happen. Ironically, the very passage they suppose talks about the unity among God’s people becomes a proof text for why God’s people should not have to be unified. Since these Christians do not “agree” with each other then they do not have to walk together. Such an interpretation of Amos 3:3 actually works against God’s purpose of unity among His people.
“[I ask] that they may all be one; even 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 sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that you sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:21-23).
“Walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. For there is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:1-6).
James Leo Garrett reminds us that people who engage in theological controversy and warfare over certain interpretive matters, insisting on the rightness of their own conclusions and the wrongness of those conclusions advanced by others, still stand under Christ’s mandate concerning love for and among His disciples [John 13:34-35] (Systematic Theology, 1:167). Within the body of Christ some things are more important than always being “right.”
John Stott insightfully teaches of two extreme views concerning unity among God’s people. Some have an overriding concern to fight for the doctrinal purity of the church. In their admirable zeal for truth and courage, they many times “tend to pursue the purity of the church at the expense of its unity, for which they seem to have no comparable concern.” They forget that even the 16th century reformers were “very reluctant schismatics,” with John Calvin calling the separation of churches “among the greatest misfortunes” of his century. The opposite extreme seeks unity by compromising even in the cardinal doctrines of the faith clearly revealed in scripture. In their concern for unity in the church, they have no comparable concern for clearly revealed evangelical truth.
One extreme separates with anyone with whom they disagree and only associates with like-minded Christians. This way pursues “truth at the expense of unity.” The other extreme loses its distinctive testimony and seeks to embrace all viewpoints, no matter how heretical. It pursues “unity at the expense of truth.” Interestingly, these opposite extremes (separation and compromise) have a common factor of easing the tension and escaping the conflict. One extreme gets out and the other gives in.
Stott highlights a third way, a harder way, of “comprehensiveness without compromise,” of staying in without caving in. This stance is more difficult because it pursues truth and unity simultaneously, the kind of unity taught by Christ and His apostles, “unity in truth.” Stott states, “Unity and truth always walk hand in hand in the New Testament” (The Living Church, 158-62). There must be a way that followers of Jesus with a huge common evangelical faith can find room for fellowship and unity, despite their different beliefs on church polity, women in ministry, eternal security, baptism, alcohol, tongues, ________ (you fill in the blank of issues dividing evangelical believers). We have a two-fold mandate in scripture, a tension between “earnestly contending for the faith” (Jude 3) and “preserving the unity” of the brethren (Eph 4:3). Personally, I do not believe that God would mandate something for which He will not provide.
I do not believe the intent or phrasing of this question comes from Amos, and neither does it receive the kind of response Amos was sought. But I do ask the question anyway, “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” Of course they can! Especially if the disagreement is not over the cardinal doctrines of the evangelical Christian faith. If a born again Christian brother has trusted the same Savior, follows the same “Lord,” has the same “God and Father,” and is baptized and empowered by the same “Spirit,” we have no choice but to be unified with him. His evangelical belief demonstrates that he shares the same new life, we travel to the same destination, and we started from the same place that all followers of Jesus “meet,” at the foot of the cross. To such people God commands to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). We teach each other, we encourage each other, chide each other, and we lovingly discipline each other, but we will never give up on each other. With a demonstrated unity among Christians, then maybe an unsaved world might listen to what we have to say (John 17:21, 23).
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Good article! All that remains to be done is:
1. To define the “cardinal doctrines of the faith.” I noticed that you were content to insert the modifier “evangelical” later in the article, although it is a word found neither in Amos nor elsewhere in the canon, nor is the concept of an “evangelical” variety of churches versus some other variety of churches. Have you any better biblical foundation for this insertion than those you critique in this article have for the lines that they have drawn? Can we presume, for example, that the “one immersion” of Ephesians 4:5? That list does seem to assert itself as “cardinal,” don’t you think?
2. To put at least some effort into delineating what “unity” is and what it is not? If I recognize a brother as a brother, are we unified? If not, how much more is required? Must I meet with him regularly to pray, and am I therefore out of unity with any with whom I am unable to make such an arrangement? Or must I go further and engage in occasional corporate worship with him? Must I receive him as a member into my congregation? Must I receive him as an elder (presuming that he is one) over my congregation? Must I pay him to support any ministry venture in which he participates? Am I out of “unity” with any and all who do not happen to receive these things from me? And wherever it is that you draw the line, can you show me exegetically (from Amos 3:3, or wherever else) precisely how your opinion is not merely your opinion, but is the clear teaching of the Bible?
3. To incorporate what to do with those who disagree with either your definition of “cardinal doctrines” or your definition of “unity.” Are they “factious” (Titus 3:10)? I mean, they’re recalcitrantly dividing the Body of Christ without cause, aren’t they? Just what ought we to do in such cases?
Thanks for your time.
Kevin,
I think you are right on target with these posts. Whatever Amos 3:3 really means, in order for us, as Christians, to “walk together,” we must be in agreement on the essentials of the Gospel. The rub comes at the moment of deciding what is “essential” and what is “secondary” or “tertiary.”
I also think that it is possible to divide between the issues of unity and cooperation. There are, for example, certain brothers and sisters in Christ, and groups of Christians, with which, if I am to honor Christ, I must walk together in unity, but with whom I will not always cooperate on every ministry project. As Southern Baptists, we join together not only because we are one in Christ, but also because, beyond this fundamental and essential unity (which we also share with other Christians), we have decided to work together on a common project that embraces all we do together as a denomination.
In my opinion, the parameters of our denominational cooperation may legitimately be more narrow than those of our fellowship and unity in Christ. The danger is when we allow our denominational parameters to cross over and blur together with our Christian fellowship parameters. At this moment, a potentially healthy denominational structure set up to facilitate Great Commission cooperation among local congregations degenerates into “denominationalism” and an obstacle to true Great Commission cooperation.
There is much more that could be said on this topic. But that’s probably enough for this comment…
Bart and David,
I am so sorry in the lateness of this response to your comments of last Saturday when my column was posted. I have been on the road since last Friday, and I have had very limited internet access. Right now, I have a few moments here at the International Learning Center during my stateside assignment training conference to dialogue some.
Bart,
1. In a previous discussion with the first installment I discussed at quite some length my view that the NT sets the bounds of Christian unity embracing those with an evangelical faith. The primary question regarding Christian unity in the NT is, “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. The doctrines necessary to make us a part of the redeemed community, make people “accepted” by God (Rom 14:3). These doctrines having to do with redemption (1 Cor 15:3-19) would then be the “cardinal” doctrines. “How might a lost person become a part of God’s family?” 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. In other words, everything else is a “family argument.” Those that God has pronounced “clean” by the blood of Jesus, I would hesitate by my words or actions to pronounce “unclean.”
If you need my definition of the term “evangelical,” I would state simply, “those who believe the gospel.” A longer one would be “someone who has personally accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and has thus obtained a right standing with God.” When I speak of unity among “evangelical brothers in Christ,” I speak of those who indeed belong to God’s family because they have entered it on God’s terms.
Farbeit that I would defend another’s definition of “baptism” (Eph 4:5), but I have found few evangelical Christians that would state that “baptism” is not important. They have simply redefined “baptism” using different modes and candidates, but they would never deny its importance. Could Paul’s “baptism” of Eph 4:5 be referring to the one not administered by human hands but instead by our Lord (e.g. Matt 3:11)? As important as water baptism is (and I believe it to be extremely important), is it necessary to be “accepted” by God (Rom 14:3)? If not, would we call it “cardinal”?
2. The questions you ask in your second set are excellent. Therein comes the rub. I find Romans 14-15 enlightening on this issue. It seems to be giving teaching on how Christian brothers who disagree on certain theological issues should treat each other. The imperatives Paul gives teach:
(1) Accept him (v. 1). After all, God has already “accepted him” (v. 3), he is God’s “servant” (v. 4), and “your brother” (v. 10). So it seems that the first step is to acknowledge at least that even in the midst of all of your differences, he is as much a part of God’s family as you are. In fact, he is God’s servant.
(2) Do not regard him with contempt (v. 3). The attitude of disdain and derision towards Christian brothers found so often in today’s verbiage brings great grief to God. The angry and hateful speech is “unwholesome” and far from being “edifying,” thus grieving the Holy Spirit. Instead, our words should be “kind,” “tenderhearted,” and “forgiving” (Eph 4:29-32).
(3) Do not judge him (v. 3). Judging is God’s prerogative, and each one of us has enough to worry about in our own stance before God (vv. 10-12). You may disagree with his stance, but don’t judge him in his relationship with God. That is God’s place, not ours.
(4) Do not cause him to stumble (v. 13-15). Be careful about pushing your convictions on a brother until the Spirit has convinced him of their rightness. Such insistence may actually be hurtful and destructive to your brother (v. 15). Such “doubt” may weaken his faith (vv. 22-23). He is already “accepted” by God (v. 3), is accountable to his own master (v. 4), and holds his belief before the Lord (vv. 6-8). Therefore, God has access to him and is able to lead him. If the only way you can seek to convince him of your convictions is to look down on him and judge him, then you are actually “tearing down the work of God” (v. 20) for your own purposes. Simply teach the truth, and if need be “admonish one another” (15:14), then let the Holy Spirit do His work (John 16:8).
(5) Do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil (v. 16). Instead be convinced in your own mind (v. 5), hold to your own convictions before God (v. 22), and allow your own faith to stand against the scrutiny (v. 23). Hold your ground, but do it with humility and respect towards your brother who sees things differently than you.
(6) Pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another (v. 19). In light of God’s overall work and purpose, some issues are not worth parting fellowship over (v. 20). Pushing these divisive issues too far can actually be “evil” and “giving offense” (v. 20). God’s kingdom is so much bigger, and exhibits things such as “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). Sometimes we simply need to “bear the weaknesses” of those with whom we disagree, allowing the issue to slide rather than “pleasing ourselves” (15:1). After all, Christ Himself lived and worked in a very imperfect setting (15:3), becoming a “servant” because of the plan and purpose of God to bring salvation to the ends of the earth (15:7-12).
You ask a good question regarding what Christian unity will look like. In light of the previous discussion, I would like to state that we as followers of Christ must find ways of blessing our brothers with whom we may disagree. At the very least it will be reflected in how we speak about each other and how we treat each other.
3. As for your third set of questions, I seek to teach, pray, and plead. Even though we may disagree, I will still seek to be “at peace” with them (Rom 12:18). Anything else would be less than my Christian duty.
David,
I think you are right on target with distinguishing between issues of unity and cooperation. I am also quite positive on the distinctive contributions and emphases of the different denominational perspectives. God’s kingdom is richer with them, and does not have to be stunted by them. I long for the day when Christians of different flavors can bless those seeking to build God’s kingdom in ways distinctively than ours. As I stated in my column, “We teach each other, we encourage each other, chide each other, and we lovingly discipline each other, but we will never give up on each other.”
Q9EvE3 comment6 ,