The Quest for Unity

Hope for the Church in a Relativistic Age

Introduction—Two Responses to Christian Community

Members of Heritage Ministries’ church communities have noted two common responses to our way of life—one is a compliment, the other a criticism.

The common compliment, from both believers and unbelievers, is some form of this statement: “I’ve never seen such unity before! There’s such a spirit of togetherness, of selfless cooperation, of shared values and purpose.”

We know that we often fall short of such high praise. But this compliment blesses and encourages us, since Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). And He prayed to the Father for all believers “that they would be brought to complete unity, then the world will know that You sent Me” (John 17:23).

Unity among believers is evidence to the world that Jesus is real, that His love is the answer to human relationships.

Those who admire our unity usually follow up with a question: “How is it possible?” We’ll revisit that towards the end of this discussion. But first we need to look at the less pleasant reaction unity sometimes invokes:

“I Feel Like You’re Judging Me!”

Spoken or unspoken, this negative impression really grieves us. We’re human, of course, so we’re certainly capable of being judgmental. But it’s not our intention to judge others, and we pray that neither our words nor our actions would ever communicate such an attitude. Yet somehow our very way of life sometimes seems to give people that impression, aside from any such attitude actually being expressed.

In fact, it seems to be common for believers and unbelievers alike to immediately jump to the conclusion that we think we’re the only true church, that our members are the only ones saved and going to heaven—even though nothing in our literature or ministry has ever made any such claim.

Why Is This False Conclusion So Common?

Perhaps the thought process goes something like this:

1. The people in this community are obviously very serious about their faith. No one would live such a self-sacrificial lifestyle or dress so differently unless they believed it was absolutely necessary for salvation.

2. If they believe all of that is absolutely necessary for salvation, then they must think it’s necessary for everyone.

3. Since I’m not living or dressing like that, they must believe I’m not saved. Therefore . . . I think they’re judging me!

We’ll address these partially mistaken assumptions more specifically a little later. But first, let’s lay some groundwork by looking at some underlying frames that foster such assumptions.

Two Barriers to Understanding

The above mistaken conclusion stems primarily from two problems:

1. The prevalence of a relativistic mind-set in modern culture, expressed through the universal exaltation of what is called “tolerance,” and

2. Believers’ confused understanding of what constitutes saving faith.

In particular, we’re going to examine how the former influences the latter. And we’ll ultimately be seeking an answer to this question:

Is it possible to maintain strong personal convictions and a belief in absolute truth without judging or alienating others who see things differently?

In other words,

How can believers work together towards unity in spite of their differences?

Roadmap for Discussion

Here’s an outline for the rest of this discussion:

1. A brief look at the relativistic world of modernity, and some key themes and inconsistencies to consider regarding its prevalent trends and belief systems
2. How relativistic culture is affecting the church at large
3. A Biblical perspective of tolerance and intolerance, and the criticisms believers often level at each other
4. A scriptural framework for approaching differences among believers
5. Correctly defining saving faith
6. The “secret ingredient” for unity in the church

Absolutely No Absolutes!

We live in an age when even the idea of absolute truth has become absolutely unacceptable. The one thing you absolutely cannot believe in is anything absolute! Things that were once accepted as clear givens—or just as simple reality, such as biological gender—are no longer to be assumed. As traditional categories and definitions of social norms like “marriage” liquefy and blur, all sorts of new, self-defined identities proliferate. In fact, it seems that any standard definition of anything is, by definition, no longer allowed.

And a new, all-important ethic has emerged: It’s called “tolerance.”

In the West, “tolerance” has displaced the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount as the new standard of virtue. The highest good in society is not only to tolerate any and all viewpoints, but also to view all as equally valid—unless, of course, a viewpoint would be so audacious as to claim the existence of absolute truth. This, again, is the one thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated.

So the new standard is that there is no standard. The word “tolerance” has effectively become a euphemism for imposing a relativistic viewpoint on everyone.

This narrow-minded commitment to open-mindedness, this absolute conviction to reject all absolutes, has birthed an ironic form of ‘unity.’ In this enforced ‘unity,’ everyone must agree that there is no need to agree—that everything is relative.

Unified by Relativism

By the end of the twentieth century, it was already being said that in higher education, according to Allan Bloom, the “one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of” is that “almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative . . . . Some are religious, some atheists; some are to the Left, some to the Right; some intend to be scientists, some humanists or professionals or businessmen; some are poor, some rich. They are unified only in their relativism.” 1

This curious form of ‘unity,’ in which people are unified only by their belief that no one need be unified, automatically views any people who are actually unified in their beliefs and lifestyle as a threat.

Why?

Because such a unity presumes an accepted standard, an absolute moral value.

And again, this runs contrary to the new standard of tolerance, which requires that there be no standard. Thus Bloom says of modern young people, “The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance . . . . The true believer is the real danger.”

Thus, when encountering an expression of authentic unity, today’s postmoderns are inclined to say (or at least think), “I feel like you’re judging me!”

Professor Steven Gey takes all this a step further, claiming that in a “modern democratic State . . . there can be no sacrosanct principles or unquestioned truths.” Therefore, in his view, “religion is fundamentally incompatible” with modern democracy. 2

Political commentator and bestselling author Kevin Phillips agreed, claiming in his book that Christianity is one of the “three major perils to the United States of the twenty-first century.” 3

The Relativistic, Tolerant Church

How is all this affecting the church? Is the culture of moral relativism corroding its traditional values and influence?

Most Americans think so. From 2001 to 2009, the percentage of “Americans who say religion is losing its influence on American life” rose massively, from 24 percent to 67 percent. 4

Many are simply leaving church behind altogether. A Newsweek article concluded that, since the high-water mark in 1965, mainline Christian denominations have been “running out of money and members and meaning.” 5 For example, statistics from the Institute on Religion and Democracy and reports from the National Council of Churches documented the following membership declines between 1965 and 2010:

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -63.5 percent

Presbyterian Church (USA) -51 percent

United Church of Christ -46.3 percent

Episcopal Church -43.1 percent

United Methodist Church -29 percent

Evangelical Lutheran Church (USA) -20.8 percent

American Baptist Churches -15.5 percent 6

Keep in mind that the general population of the U.S. increased by about 35 percent during this same time period. And, of course, we also should note that of the remainder  of those who still claim mainline church membership, only 34 percent actually attend regularly. 7

Evangelicals have not fared much better. Christian pollster George Barna documented a 60 percent defection from the ranks of Evangelicals in just eight years. 8 A 2002 study found that Evangelical teens in America had declined from 10 percent to 4 percent of the overall teen population in the preceding seven years. 9

Barna attributed “this demise . . . to growing numbers of teenagers who accept moral relativism and pluralistic theology as their faith foundation.” 10

In fact, according to a 2005 Barna poll, “only 9 percent of all born-again adults have a biblical worldview—meaning that less than one out of every ten Christians age 18 or older believes that absolute moral truth exists, believes that such truth is contained in the Bible, and possesses a handful of core beliefs that reflect such truth.” 11

None of this reality, of course, restrains the media and pop culture from portraying all Christians as Bible-thumping, moralizing, rigid authoritarians, demanding rigorous adherence to absolute standards. But journalist William Murchison pointed out that this popular stereotype of authoritative ministry in the church “has things backward and inside out, most of all when the topic is America’s Mainline churches.” 12

Murchison, himself a member of a mainline denomination, explains that, in reality, “sweet tolerance and gentle affirmation are the hallmarks of today’s mainliners.” 13

Effects of Moral Relativism on Believers’ Lifestyle Choices

What are the effects of this relaxing of moral standards among believers?

Should we be surprised that as early as 2001, according to a Barna poll, the percentage of unmarried couples cohabiting differed hardly at all between the general public and self-professing born-again believers? 14 Should we marvel that two-thirds of unmarried Christians admit they have not practiced chastity? 15 After all, fully “half of U.S. conservative Protestant adults do not believe premarital sex is always wrong.” 16

So this is not just a case of believers failing to live up to the moral standards they believe in—many of these believers are redefining and rationalizing away the very moral standards that all Bible believers once espoused.

Is it any wonder that the divorce rate among born-again Christians is “slightly higher . . . than that of non-Christians?” 17

Should we be shocked that, according to Internet Filter Review, 47 percent of Christians admitted that internet “pornography was a major problem in the home?” 18 A survey conducted by Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church found that 30 percent of “6,000 pastors . . . admitted viewing internet pornography in the last 30 days.” 19 Another study revealed that 53 percent of men belonging to the Promise Keepers organization “viewed pornography in the last week.” 20

Should the church tolerate this state of affairs?

Tolerance and Intolerance in the Bible

But perhaps believers are confused. Doesn’t the Bible teach tolerance and accommodation as Christian virtues? After all, Jesus said plainly that we are not to judge others (Matt. 7:1). He didn’t come to condemn, but to save. He stuck up for the underdog. He dined with tax collectors and sinners. He said to love our enemies. He offered living water to the woman at the well, knowing full well that she had had five husbands.

Yes, He was very tolerant! Think of His parable of the prodigal son, whose father ran to meet him, though he was fresh out of the pigpen. Jesus refused to condemn an adulteress, caught in the very act. He even forgave those who crucified Him. And the apostles followed suit—Stephen forgave his murderers, Paul and Silas comforted their own jailer.

Yet as we seek a Biblical definition of tolerance and intolerance, there are other, perhaps more troubling, accounts we must also consider. For example, Jesus called a Gentile woman a dog and initially refused to help her. He castigated the Pharisees with the worst sorts of criticism, calling them vipers, whitewashed tombs, children of hell. And He certainly wasn’t very tolerant of the money changers in the temple!

And then there’s Paul, calling Elymas a son of the devil, publicly criticizing the Cretans as liars and lazy gluttons, commanding the Corinthians to turn a sinning brother over to satan, calling the Pharisees dogs. Where is the “sweet tolerance and gentle affirmation” in all of this?

Definitions of  Tolerance

Can we establish, then, a legitimate definition of tolerance that is in keeping with the Scriptures? Let’s begin by further clarifying what that slippery term even means in today’s world.

Less than forty-five years ago, Harper and Row’s Dictionary of Political Thought still defined tolerance as “the policy of . . . forbearance towards that which is not approved.” 21

But this traditional understanding of tolerance is (you guessed it) no longer tolerated. Mere disapproval is now considered “intolerance,” if not persecution.

French professor of political science Philippe Bénéton observed that today’s “prevalent idea of tolerance is connected to [moral] relativism: ‘each one has his truth’ . . . . To be tolerant in this view is to cling to the opinion that everything is a matter of opinion and of equal opinions at that.” Therefore, “no one has the right to put forth a universal standard. To affirm that a particular [standard] is true by itself, apart from mere opinion, is considered an attack on tolerance.” 22

So allowing others the freedom to live by their own lights is no longer deemed sufficient. The new definition of “tolerance” demands that one must endorse the beliefs and practices of others as having equal validity to one’s own.

This is called “moral neutrality.” It requires existing in a constant state of suspended judgment between right and wrong, because one can supposedly “never really know.” Everything is “culturally determined,” we’re told.

In some cultures people aspire to love their neighbors, in others they try to eat them—but who are we to judge?

The “Scandal of Neutrality”

But there’s a logical fallacy in claiming “moral neutrality” as a virtue. UT professor of philosophy J. Budziszewski explains, “It might seem remarkable that people who insist that tolerance means moral neutrality should themselves be so earnest in ridiculing those who aren’t neutral. But of course, they themselves aren’t neutral either. The scandal of Neutrality is that its worshipers cannot answer the question ‘why be neutral?’ without committing themselves to particular goods—social peace, self-expression, self-esteem, ethnic pride, or what have you—thereby violating their own desideratum of Neutrality. Yet even this is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, namely, there is no such thing as Neutrality. It isn’t merely unachievable, like a perfect circle; it is unthinkable and unapproachable, like a square circle.” 23

In other words, it turns out that values, by definition, cannot be neutral.

But none of this is to say that tolerance, properly defined, is a bad thing. To the contrary, it’s absolutely essential to the flourishing of free society.

Let’s now explore perhaps the most helpful criterion for distinguishing legitimate tolerance from its popular counterfeit.

To Force or Not to Force—That Is the Question

It’s been said that true tolerance is “a virtue born of confidence in the ability of Truth to vindicate itself without instruments of coercion.” 24 So a key distinction in our discussion of tolerance is the question of compulsion.

If we remove from the table the prerogative to force someone to agree with one’s view of truth, then it becomes possible to believe in absolutes without threatening the freedom of others to believe otherwise. Therefore, any religion or belief system that genuinely refuses to employ coercion to further its cause cannot credibly pose a “danger to society” or a “peril to democracy” in the manner claimed above.

Christian believers presumably value God above all else. And since “God is love,” that means that love is their supreme object. Love is both the means and the end of all Christian activity.

Yet love requires freedom. If it’s compelled by coercion, it isn’t really love. No externally imposed law can ever change the heart. So even in the case of terribly misguided souls, attempting to force them to change their wrong beliefs is not only futile, it’s counterproductive.

This verse from the 1800s makes the point well:

And when religious sects ran mad,

He held, in spite of all his learning,

That if a man’s belief is bad,

It will not be improved by burning. 25

Which Sword?

Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, has been called America’s “prophet of religious liberty,” the father of religious tolerance in this country. 26 Williams believed that the “sword of steel” ought not to be employed in the cause of Christ—neither in promoting it nor defending it. Only the sword of truth was appropriate to this purpose. He, too, believed that as long as freedom of discussion could be safeguarded, truth could take care of itself. 27

Jesus, of course, also rejected the “sword of steel” and advocated for the power of truth alone. When He stood trial before Pontius Pilate, He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight . . . . For this cause I was born and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:36-37).

Pilate responded like a faithful relativist: “What is truth?” (John 18:38).

This should serve as a lesson from history that relativizing truth does not make intolerance disappear, for Pilate proceeded to order the crucifixion of the only sinless man in history—the one who said, “I am the truth.”

The headlines of the day could have accurately read: Militant Relativist Murders Innocent Absolutist.

So the real danger to freedom and liberty is not posed by those who simply hold to the notion of absolute truth but do not impose it on others. The danger is found, rather, among those who would resort to “burning” or crucifying—those who would use violent force, especially the inescapable club hand of the State, to coerce others to conform to their beliefs. (This is true whether those beliefs are relativist, fundamentalist, or otherwise).

True intolerance appears at its worst when a majority forces its views on a minority.

Public versus Private

All this makes clear why we must keep sight of a crucial distinction between the public realm, appropriately governed by State compulsion, and the private sphere, traditionally governed by the voluntary associations of family and religious organizations. Proper limits and restraints on the former should not be categorically applied to the latter.

Most Americans today have no trouble recognizing that it would be disastrous for a religious organization to obtain the inescapable coercive power of civil government in order to impose its beliefs on society. This would truly be intolerant of people’s right to live according to their own conscience.

But, on the other hand, for the State to force a family or a voluntary association (such as a church) to “tolerate” within their own freely chosen ranks beliefs or behaviors that violate their conscience or standards is an abuse of power. It is denying those voluntary institutions their right to self-definition.

For example, imagine forcing a Girl Scout troop to “tolerate” a man coming along on a sleepover camping trip in the name of the man’s “right to identify as a Girl Scout.” This would automatically be a violation of the Girl Scouts’ right to determine their own group identity. The man should be free to call himself whatever he pleases and to camp all he wants in some other context, but the Girl Scouts should not be forced to accommodate him in their freely chosen association.

So not only the Bible but even the principles of freedom and sound reasoning would seem to constrain us to the traditional definition of tolerance: show forbearance towards that which is disapproved, and allow truth to take care of itself. And don’t force private, voluntary institutions to welcome and applaud those they disapprove of.

So, if we’ve now sufficiently established a proper definition of tolerance that corresponds to Christian values, let’s move on to the question of how Christian believers should approach differences among themselves as they seek for unity.

“Too Much Unity!”

Believers today have been so saturated in the trends of our times that it’s easy to simply absorb a relativistic mind-set by osmosis. More and more, Christians are heard to self-righteously parrot stock mottos of relativism, such as, “There are many roads up the mountain.” The various roads may look very different—some are narrow and difficult, others are broad and easy—but, rest assured, they all eventually lead to the top, to eternal happiness. (Didn’t Jesus once say something like that?)

These professed Christians, infected by the new faith in “moral neutrality,” not only aren’t motivated to strive for unity, they actually view “too much unity” as evidence of a problem! Any evident form of shared identity within a church group is seen not only as unnecessary, but even as bad fruit.

“These people are obviously narrow-minded, sectarian, and authoritarian. Look at the rigid uniformity! This is obviously legalism and externalism, a ‘cookie-sheet religion,’ producing lemmings who can’t think for themselves. It’s classic, fundamentalist, self-righteous works theology. They’re clearly intolerant of other believers. I feel like they’re judging me!”

(The recipients of such criticism are, admittedly, sometimes tempted to ask in response, “Who is the one judging here?”)

Unity or Uniformity?

We can readily concede that ditches appear on both sides of the road to unity in the church. One is the attempt to impose external uniformity on prospective church members, pressuring them into conformity to lifestyle choices or creeds they don’t really feel or believe, overriding their conscience and personal conviction. This is another way of losing faith that the truth can take care of itself. It’s a failure to “bear with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2). (More on that below.)

The other, more accepted and popular ditch is to settle for a counterfeit unity: water down all standards until they’re meaningless, find the lowest common denominator, and just “unite” in the shared belief that beliefs don’t really matter. This is a failure to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). It’s the familiar relativistic approach again, which eventually generalizes and dilutes the Word of God to the point that it’s no longer definable or actionable, and believers are no longer distinguishable from the world.

But Paul said that believers are not to “conform to the pattern of this world” but must instead be “conformed to the image of [God’s] Son” (Rom. 12:2; 8:29). So it seems we should expect believers to have a distinct identity, expressed in every aspect of their lives.

Can we somehow avoid both of the ditches outlined above?

Consider that Jesus said we must “first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may also become clean” (Matt. 23:26).

Is it possible that greater and greater manifestations of unity in word and deed can result solely from powerful, internal transformation in response to the truth?

Ephesians 4—Recipe for Unity

Let’s take an old-fashioned approach now (if you’ll tolerate it). Let’s turn to the Bible for direction and answers to our earlier, seminal question:

How can believers work together towards unity in spite of their present differences?

Paul addresses this specifically in Ephesians 4, where he begins with a clear description of Biblical tolerance:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Then, as if to ensure that this tolerance is not mistaken for relativism, he immediately emphasizes absolute truth—that God does not have multiple versions of truth:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Next, he points out that no one has all the fullness of Christ’s gift—no individual (other than Christ Himself) has a monopoly on truth or wisdom:

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Then Paul points to a plural, cooperative leadership ministry that must operate in the church if it is to avoid deception and false teaching and come to unity and maturity:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ.

What a picture of the pathway to unity!

To summarize, we must walk in the “unity of the Spirit . . . till we all come to the unity of the faith” and perfect knowledge. We must “bear with one another in love” but also “speak the truth to one another in love.” 28

This is key:

Every genuine believer is a work in progress.

And every authentic church is a work in progress.

An attitude of humility, such as Paul herein describes, allows us to think of ourselves with sober judgment, fully aware that others may possess some truth or revelation from God that we might not yet understand, just as we, in turn, may be walking in truth that they have yet to ascertain.

The Church at Ephesus

Keep in mind that Paul is writing all this to the Ephesian church, knowing that they have experienced and embraced this very process of unfolding revelation. For we first hear of this congregation in Acts 19, where we witness an interaction between believers who are humble enough to grow into greater truth:

Paul . . . came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

And they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

When they heard this, the Ephesian believers said, “I feel like you’re judging me! Your doctrines may be good for you, but God accepts me just the way that I am! And besides, my grandmother never believed all that—are you saying she didn’t make it to heaven?”

No, sorry, that was a misquote. Let’s read more carefully:

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

The Ephesians had the humility and faith to step forward into new revelation of truth and grace, into deeper relationship with Jesus.

Defining Saving Faith

But notice that Paul calls the Ephesians here “disciples” and “believers” when he first meets them. They were apparently already walking with God on some level. If they were believers already, then weren’t they already saved? And if so, was it even necessary for them to receive these truths concerning baptism in water and the Spirit? Or are some truths just “add-ons”—extra blessings, but not essential?

Here is where it becomes critical to understand exactly what constitutes the kind of faith that brings salvation.

Let’s circle back and discuss this in the context described at the beginning—the thought process that produces the reaction, “You’re judging me!”

In brief, that sequence was:

1. These people are obviously very serious about their faith, so they must believe their lifestyle is absolutely necessary for salvation.

2. Therefore they must be judging me, because I’m not living that way.

Members of our church family would readily concede that we’re very serious about our faith. But from there the assumptions break down because of a wrong framework for understanding salvation. This is a much larger topic than we can do justice to here, so we’ll have to resort to some raw assertions for the sake of brevity. But all this is backed up in Scripture. Suffice it to say that repentant sinners are saved by grace through faith.

Most Protestants would agree. But let’s define that saving faith more precisely: it’s not a list of accurate creeds or a regimen of particular practices or lifestyle choices that saves a person. But neither is it merely a one-time “legal declaration” that enacts an irrevocable “eternal life insurance policy.”

We’re saved through a genuine, living relationship with God.

This right relationship allows His sacrifice to justify us. Jesus made the relational nature of salvation clear when He prayed, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

Faith Is Obedience

But here is a crucial point: genuine faith and genuine relationship with Jesus as our Lord cannot be separated from obeying Him. Paul begins and ends the book of Romans speaking of “the obedience that is faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

Jesus also made this inseparable connection clear when He said He would not grant eternal life to people who call Him “Lord” but do not do the things He says (Luke 6:46). To such people He will say, “Depart from Me . . . . I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23).

So who is “saved”?

Whoever is living in authentic and faithful relationship with Jesus—those who love Him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, joyfully walking in heartfelt obedience to all the truth He’s revealed to them.

Ongoing Revelation

This brings us back to a previous question: Does the Lord show different versions of truth to different people? In other words, is He a moral relativist, offering multiple valid pathways to salvation?

The Scriptures teach that the short answer is no. God is not schizophrenic, not double-minded—He is one. His essence never changes.

But what is critical to understand is the unfolding revelation that comes through saving faith. God’s truth is absolute and unchanging. But our understanding of that truth is partial. In this world, we only “see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12, KJV).

Paul wrote that “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17). It’s a process of continual revelation. Therefore, different aspects of truth may have been revealed to one sincere believer or congregation that may not have yet been revealed to another.

This, again, is where humility becomes key—that none of us would presume to have a monopoly on the truth. But because God is consistent, all truth must eventually harmonize in Christ and in His Body, the church.

Walking in the Light

The words of John Robinson, pastor of the congregation that sailed on the Mayflower, beautifully express this journey into truth. He admonished the Pilgrims before they set sail for America, “I charge you before God, and before His blessed angels, that you follow me no further than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ . . . . The Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of His Holy Word . . . . I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion; and will go at present no further than the instruments of their first reformation.” Luther and Calvin “were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God . . . . I beseech you to remember it; it is an article of your church-covenant, that you will be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made known unto you from the written Word of God.” But “take heed what you receive as truth; examine it, consider it, compare it with the other scriptures of truth, before you do receive it. For it is not possible [that] the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.” 29

These powerful words correspond perfectly with Proverbs 4:18:

The path of the righteous is as the first light of dawn, shining ever brighter until the full light of day. (BSB, NIV)

The Psalms clarify what the light on that path is:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. (Ps. 119:105, KJV)

And the apostle John further reveals that this walk in the light leads us into unity not only with God but with one another:

If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship [literally, communion] one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from every sin. (1 John 1:7, KJV, NKJV)

Jesus warned that keeping in step with the unfolding light of God is not only beneficial, it’s necessary:

Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you. (John 12:35)

He rebuked the Pharisees for starting down the path, but stopping short when the next step of revelation appeared:

[John] was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John’s; . . . but you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. (John 5:35-36, 40)

The writer of Hebrews reinforces this necessity of continuing in the faith:

“The just shall live by faith. Now if anyone shrinks back, My soul will have no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back unto perdition, but of those who believe unto the saving of the soul. (Heb. 10:38-39)

The apostle Paul adopted this same attitude of pressing forward into greater revelation of truth and light. Notice especially that he explicitly connects this mind-set to coming to maturity and unity in the church:

Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. (Phil. 3:13-16)

Direction, Not Position

This understanding of salvation as an unfolding relationship with Jesus, as a walk of faith leading into greater and greater light, proves key to bringing unity among believers.

Consider that if one believes that salvation is found in a particular set of doctrines, then the door is open for a constant judging of others deemed to be in error. But if salvation is a progressive journey into the truth, then it’s not one’s current position on that path that determines their standing with God—it is one’s posture and direction that validates their claim to salvation.

None of us have perfect understanding of all God’s truth. All of us fall short of His standards. All of us depend on His saving grace to cover us for what we have not yet attained. But we believe along with the apostle James that guilt is according to knowledge—that “to the one who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17, ESV, KJV). And we believe along with Paul that “if the willingness is there, the gift is accepted according to what one has and not according to what one does not have” (2 Cor. 8:12).

Unity in Shared Willingness to Grow

Hope for unity in the church is not found in isolated pieces of truth, even accurate truths. Hope for unity is in a proper attitude of willingness to wholeheartedly follow the Lord into more and more light and truth.

If you believe people are saved simply by adherence to a particular list of creeds, then everything becomes about comparing your list with mine—thus the cause of “doctrine wars.” But our capacity to grow together as brothers should be based on our shared sincerity and the authenticity of our relationship with Jesus!

When this is the emphasis, then the importance of any particular doctrine corresponds directly to its effect on our relationships with God and one another. If it doesn’t affect these, it doesn’t matter. And in the meantime, Jesus instructed us to judge a tree not by its doctrines but by its fruit—especially the fruit of the Spirit in our relationships: love, joy, peace, and so on (Matt. 7:16-20; 12:33; Gal. 5:22).

Again, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

The Secret Ingredient

And now for the “secret ingredient” to unity. (Be forewarned—the reason it’s seldom used in modern recipes is because it’s distasteful to the flesh.)

At a burial service in a city cemetery, a friend and I were noting the variety of lives interred there. There were enormous, expensive monuments and simple, frugal ones. There were people who lived nearly a hundred years buried next to those who died tragically in their youth. There were famous names next to stillborn infants who were never named.

Looking out across the field of graves, my friend said quietly, “I guess once you’re here, everyone is the same.”

Think about it: no competition, no ambition, no greed, no envy, no ego—none of the things that always divide people.

There is unity of the Spirit in the graveyard of the flesh.

When there is genuine death to self, there are no barriers to unity, nothing to prevent the sharing of life in the Body of Christ. To quote Paul, believers are to be “united together in the likeness of His death” (Rom. 6:5).

In Biblical terms, this profound death to self is called repentance, and it always precedes the realization of a new level of the kingdom of God:

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matt. 3:2; 4:17)

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel. (Mark 1:15)

Repent . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn poignantly described it as the foundation for “concord,” for unity:

Repentance is the first bit of firm ground underfoot, the only one from which we can go forward not to fresh hatreds but to concord. Repentance is the only starting point for spiritual growth. 30

Blair Adams, the founder of Heritage Ministries, called repentance “the missing essential for restoring the church to its original power and unity.” 31 It is a profound turning point, a turning away from self as center and towards God as center.

When individuals are self-centered, we cannot hope for anything but competition and division, as all those disparate centers are inevitably going to disagree. But when all are willing to renounce their autonomy and look to one center—one Lord—true unity and harmony are possible.

Repentance must be more than a one-time encounter with God or sorrow for particular sins—it must become the attitude, the state of being, that governs our approach towards every future encounter with greater light from God. Surely the failure of the modern church to find unity is primarily a failure to fully apprehend the power of repentance.

One More Early Church Example

In Acts 18 we read about a remarkable man who receives perhaps the most praiseworthy description found in the New Testament. And yet this man does not possess full understanding of the truth.

Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

What did Apollos say in response? Maybe . . . “I feel like you’re judging me! I’ve already been instructed in the way of the Lord. God has undeniably blessed my ministry—are these new details really even necessary? Are you trying to say my baptism wasn’t sufficient? After all, you guys are just tent makers, but everyone knows I’m mighty in the Scriptures and teach accurately the things concerning Jesus!”

No—he said no such thing. He didn’t try to use his previous faith to defend himself from more truth—he proved his faith by eagerly accepting this fresh grace, the more accurate way, no matter the vessels it came through. Therefore, he went on to “greatly help those who had believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). The church received him because he demonstrated his faith by walking in the light when it came to him.

If an apostle like Apollos can show that kind of humility, so can we.

Conclusion

I’ll close by saying plainly, to whom it may concern: relax—we’re not judging you! We don’t presume to know where you may be on your journey of faith. But we want to assume the best, and we hope that you would show us the same regard.

We’d love to share anything we’ve learned of God’s goodness and truth that would be of help to you, and we look forward to hearing what further grace He might reveal to us through you. We’re eager to interface and network in mutual respect with other believers.

As the world increasingly succumbs to a gray fog of hopeless confusion and the love of most grows cold, this is the hour for the church to come together and shine all the brighter.

Let’s show by our love for one another that we are His disciples indeed. And let’s diligently reach for complete unity, that all may know that Jesus is the answer for the world today.

Endnotes

1. Bloom, Closing of the American Mind, pp. 25-26 (emphasis added).
2. Steven G. Gey, “Why Is Religion Special? Reconsidering the Accommodation of Religion under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, vol. 52, no. 75 (1990), p. 174.
3. Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (New York: Viking, 2006), p. vii.
4. Ted Olsen, “Go Figure,” Christianity Today, March 2009, p. 16.
5. Kenneth L. Woodward, “Dead End for the Mainline?” Newsweek, 9 August 1993, http://www.newsweek.com/id/115101; Joseph Bottum, “The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline,” First Things, August/September 2008, p. 25.
6. “Chart of Mainline Church Membership Decline,” Institute on Religion and Democracy, 3 November 2005, http://www.ird-renew.org/, not attributed; “Catholics, Mormons, Assemblies of God Growing; Mainline Churches Report a Continuing Decline,” News from the National Council of Churches, 12 February 2010, http://www. ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html, not attributed; Russ Jones, “ ‘Gay’ Clergy Leads to Membership Drop,” OneNewsNow.com, 17 August 2010, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=1125624; “About the Disciples,” Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), http://www.disciples.org/AboutTheDisciples/tabid/67/Default.aspx, not attributed; “Stated Clerk Releases PC (USA) 2009 Statistics,” Office of the General Assembly, 29 June 2010, http://oga.pcusa.org/newsstories/stats2009.htm, not attributed; “Ten Facts You Should Know about American Baptists,” American Baptist Churches USA, http://www.abc-usa.org/portals/0/ABC10FactsBrochure.pdf, not attributed.
7. Bottum, “The Death of Protestant America,” p. 26.
8. “Teens Change Their Tune Regarding Self and Church,” The Barna Group, 23 April 2002, https://www.barna.org/research/teens-change-their-tune-regarding-self-and-church/, not attributed.
9. “Teens Change Their Tune Regarding Self and Church.”
10. “Teens Change Their Tune Regarding Self and Church.”
11. George Barna, Revolution (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), p. 32.
12. William Murchison, “Mainline Marital Mélange: When the Culture Preaches to the Church,” Chronicles, March 2009, p. 14.
13. Murchison, “Mainline Marital Mélange,” p. 14.
14. Ronald J. Sider, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Don’t Christians Live What They Preach,” Books and Culture, January/February 2005, p. 39.
15. Lauren F. Winner, “Sex in the Body of Christ,” Christianity Today, May 2005, pp. 29-30.
16. Christian Smith, “Social Science, Ideology, and American Evangelicals,” review of The Truth about Conservative Christians, by Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout, Books and Culture, November/December 2006, p. 26 (emphasis added).
17. Sider, “Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,” p. 9 (emphasis in original).
18. Jerry Ropelato, “Internet Pornography Statistics,” Internet Filter Review (2006), http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornograp hy-statistics.html.
19. “Internet Pornography Statistics—The Scope of the Problem,” North American Mission Board, 5 June 2006, http://www.namb.net/, not attributed.
20. Ropelato, “Internet Pornography Statistics.”
21. Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1982), p. 464.
22. Philippe Bénéton, “True and False Tolerance,” Crisis, April 1996, p. 34 (emphasis added).
23. J. Budziszewski, “The Illusion of Moral Neutrality,” First Things, August/September 1993, p. 32 (emphasis in original).
24. Kent Weber, “How Far Is Tolerance a Virtue?” Regeneration Quarterly, Winter 1996, p. 29 (emphasis added).
25. Winthrop Mackworth Praed, “The Vicar,” in The Oxford Book of English Verse, 1250-1918, ed. Arthur Quiller-Couch (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1939), p. 790.
26. Perry Miller, Roger Williams: His Contribution to the American Tradition (New York: Atheneum, 1970), p. 254; Perry Miller, ed., The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Anchor Books, 1956), pp. 93-94; Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 182; Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia, 15th ed., s.v. “Williams, Roger.”
27. Leighton H. James, “Roger Williams—The Earliest Legislator for a Full and Absolute Liberty of Conscience,” in The Puritan Experiment in the New World (Huntingdon, England: Westminster Conference, 1976), pp. 54-55.
28. Another critical piece in this “recipe” for unity, as mentioned, is the functioning of a legitimate “fivefold ministry.” This requires deeper discussion than we can afford here. See The Fivefold Ministry: A Brief Summary by Asahel Adams (Elm Mott, Tex.: Heritage Press, 2024).
29. Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana: Books I and II, ed. Kenneth B. Murdock and Elizabeth W. Miller (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1977), pp. 144-45.
30. Alexander Solzhenitsyn et al., From under the Rubble, trans. A. M. Brock et al. (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), p. 107.
31. See the Dying to Death series by Blair Adams (Elm Mott, Tex.: Colloquium Press, 1977, 1988, 2021).