Radical Unity, Radical Separation tagged: , , , , ,

Radical Unity, Radical Separation

Posted by in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions

Many evangelical leaders, from both within the SBC, as well as without, have signed the Manhattan Declaration.

Though I am fundamentally in agreement with the basic objectives spelled out in the document, and I have not been loath to add my name to various documents, which, such as this one, seek public support, I have been asking myself, since I first saw it a couple of days ago, whether or not I should add my name to the list of signatories.

Reading the following commentary by John MacArthur helped me place a finger on my misgivings…

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity… (read the rest of the article here).

In the past four years or so on the blogosphere, I have consistently made my case for an increased practice in practical Christian unity among evangelical believers. Such being the case, some who have followed what I have written may find odd what I am saying here.

Understood properly, I believe that a consistent, biblical practice of Christian unity—what I would also call radical unity—carries along with it a corresponding commitment to a radical separation from all those who are not truly our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I suppose that cobelligerency with non-believers for the advance of certain causes has its time and place. However, we must be extra careful to never confuse this type of cobelligerency with our essential unity in Christ.

If the Manhattan Declaration, for instance, had included Jews, Muslims, and even “moral” atheists, among its signatories, I might be more inclined to jump on board; because, in such a case, it would be clear that this is not a document written and promoted from an implied common perspective on the essentials of the gospel. But, since it claims to be a specifically Christian document, it seems to me that adding my name to the list of signatories would imply my support of the claim of the sum total of the framers to be authentic, biblical Christians.

I’m sure some of you are thinking, by now, how narrow-minded of me. As I understand it, however, the core of what makes us authentic, biblical Christians is our embracing of the biblical gospel. The Apostle Paul did not mince words, when he said, in Galatians 1:6–9:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

I am aware of recent dialogue between leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and certain Protestant (and even Evangelical) leaders over the nature of justification by faith, and have followed it with some interest. If I could be convinced that the “gospel” officially taught by the Roman Catholic Church really was the true gospel, I would be much more open to endeavors such as the Manhattan Declaration, and even Evangelicals and Catholics Together. If I could be persuaded, for example, to accept that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that participation in the sacraments of baptism, the eucharist, and auricular confession of “mortal sins” is a sine qua non for obtaining eternal salvation for all those who have come to a full understanding of the truth, I might be able to see this differently.

However, in my present understanding, I am not yet convinced that, if a person consistently believes and practices the doctrines taught in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, they can be saved. This does not preclude the possibility of many who respond to the name Roman Catholic being true born-again believers. Indeed, I believe there are many who match that description. However, I believe this occurs in spite of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and not because of it.

The same holds true, as far as I am concerned, with all so-called Christian groups who do not truly embrace the biblical gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone. As Christians, that which joins us together is not the name Christian. Neither is it our common acceptance of this doctrine or that doctrine. It is our common embracing of the gospel, and, as a result of our common embracing of the gospel, our common relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And, if you truly embrace the same gospel I embrace, and have a true saving relationship with the same Lord and Savior who has saved me, then you are my brother or sister in Christ, no matter what else you may happen to believe or practice on this or that.

Now, that doesn’t mean I am never going to call you down on matters in which we are in disagreement, nor that I don’t give you the right to call me down, whenever you think I may be wrong. But, on the most important matter of all, the eternal gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are in deep, binding, fundamental agreement. We are members of the same Body. We are brothers and sisters. And, we should never minimize the importance of that.

As Southern Baptists, however, we are united, in cooperation, on something a little more narrowly defined than the gospel itself. The basic thrust of our cooperative work, as Southern Baptists, are our efforts directed toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Ideally, we are joined together with all who believe in the same gospel, and are members of the same Body of Christ, in our work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. However, not all members of the Body of Christ cooperate in the same way with us in the same subset of ministry projects that specifically join us together as Southern Baptists, nor in the same subset of doctrinal affirmations that we confess through the Baptist Faith & Message.

Now, it is a matter of theological debate exactly what comprises our mission as Christians. In missiological circles, a good bit of discussion has gone on, in recent years, regarding the difference between missions (focusing specifically on such tasks as evangelism, discipleship, and church planting, as embodied in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20), and the missio Dei (or the underlying and overarching mission of God throughout history, that is broader than the specific mission of the New Testament Church).

As I understand it, what joins us together, first of all, as Southern Baptists, is cooperation, specifically, in New Testament missions. This does not mean that, as Christians, or Southern Baptists, we must be disinterested or uninvolved in broader missio Dei-type concerns, such as caring for the environment, justice, and secular politics. However, I question to what extent our cooperative efforts, as Southern Baptists, should be focused on these areas.

In any case, it seems to me that, as Southern Baptists, the projects that join us together should, as far as priority is concerned, be specifically Christian projects, and not projects that Jews, Muslims, and “moral” atheists, could just as well sign on to. And, they should even more specifically be evangelical projects—that is, projects that exist specifically in order to promote and proclaim the gospel, and with which only Christians who believe and accept the gospel could, with a good conscience, support.

In addition to this, there are other projects in which we may cooperate, which are not specifically Christian projects. The Baptist Faith & Message distinguishes between these types of projects (I believe correctly) in the following statements (I have highlighted certain phrases in bold print for emphasis):

From Section XIV on Cooperation:

Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God…Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

From Section XV on The Christian and the Social Order:

Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.

I believe the balance advocated here is a positive, though subtle, one. And, at the core, I believe the underlying truth at stake, in this particular instance, is the need to maintain and defend a radical unity with all those who are truly part of the Body of Christ, and a corresponding radical separation with those who are not.