Unity in the Body

The topic of unity has come up quite a few times in the past couple of days and as such, I've been mulling it over in my head and heart. At small groups on Wednesday night we prayed for the unity of the church, both local and universal. People lamented the lack of unity among the body of Christ and prayed that the Lord would cause people to see the need for unity and work toward it. After Wednesday I read an article which contained unity as a major sub-theme and had a spontaneous conversation with a great brother about the need for unity in the body. So, it would appear that the Lord is putting the topic in my path in order that I might think on it. And here I am, thinking on it.

A primary verse came immediately to mind when considering this topic, Eph 4:3, "being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Its quite obvious from this verse and others like it that unity is a serious matter that we shouldn't take lightly. The real issue is, I think, how do we bring about unity in the body, locally and universally? This is a difficult question, especially in times of vast diversity. How do we go about pursuing unity with those whose traditions and beliefs are different than ours? Where do we draw the line in order to prevent sacrificing truth for false unity? And, finally, how do we maintain unity in the bond of peace, not just begrudgingly? Unfortunately I don't have the answers to all these questions I've just posed. But I do think they're answerable and I intend to be thinking through them in the future more than I have in the past.

I'll begin here by rehashing that conversation I mentioned earlier. This will be especially relevant for seminarians and other folks who are involved in the thought-wars of academia. A lot of time and energy seems to be devoted to defending and refuting beliefs, in classrooms, in churches, in peer-groups. So how can we defend that which needs to be defended, refute that which needs to be refuted, and all the while preserve unity in the bond of peace? By doing so in a spirit of charity. Two men come to my mind when I think of excellent examples of this, D. A. Carson and John Piper. If you really want to hear and see two men who can walk through the fire of conflict and come out not smelling like smoke, listen to and read the work of Carson and Piper. I include Carson because of his ability to always have something good to say of any position or any person which is about to critique. I've heard him on many occasions speak against false-teachings or false-teachers and begin by say "Now, so-and-so has really offered some great insight into these particular areas and I am indebted to him for his work on this particular subject. However here on the matter of ______ I think he's grossly mistaken." I've heard Carson have good things to say about everyone from E. P. Sanders to John Dominic Crossin. But he doesn't back down from point out where they're wrong and even where they're dangerous. We need this attitude to penetrate our own practices of "defending the faith." As my good brother pointed out, if all we do is rail someone from start to finish, those hear us will simply write that individual and all his disciples off (I use the term disciple very loosely); and, in doing so, become further isolated from a part of the body. If instead we took Carson's approach, we might get our hearers to think critically about what they listen to and read, eating the meat and spitting out the bones.

I choose John Piper as my second example of a model to follow when confronting controversy because of his amazing ability to be charitable to individuals but at the same time violently opposed to false teaching. Two instances come to mind here. First, Piper's dealing with N. T. Wright and the new perspectives on Paul in his newer book The Future of Justification. Piper explains in the introduction that he chose to speak out against Wright and not someone else, like James Dunn, because of Wright's widespread influence and popularity. The entire book is very charitably written and Piper is always as gracious as possible toward Wright, but that's not the main point. The main point is that Piper went to great lengths to make sure he was accurately representing Wright's position. He even sent Wright a first draft of his manuscript so that he would have a chance to respond and so that Piper could incorporate his response into the final product. That's pretty bold. In a later interview, Wright said that he and Piper were both old enough to know that the debate wasn't personal, as with their added years they'd both lost the testosterone aspect of theological discourse. I found that to be very interesting, as I know how charged I can get over a doctrine, especially one I consider to be a false doctrine. Second, Piper doesn't play around when something dangerously aberrant is being promulgated. Consider this video on youtube, in which Piper condemns the prosperity Gospel. Even using the word "hatred" concerning his stance against it. So, Piper knows how to debate like a gentleman and how to dig in his heels. I think we can learn much from his example.

I know this hasn't been a very thorough treatment of the matter of unity. I've only briefly touched on a couple of examples I've seen as ideals for confronting conflict, but I hope that these examples will be helpful and will cause you to think about your own interaction with those you disagree with.