Jun
23
2012
Unity in Truth
Here is another excerpt from Turning Around the Mainline. In it, Tom Oden writes wisely (and passionately) about the right and wrong ways to pursue ecclesiastical unity.
Oldline ecumenical debate and planning are prone to misfire through a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of unity and truth: They do no seek unity based on truth.
Four modern ecumenical arguments in particular misfire, as shown by David Mills. They even make Christian disunity more likely. These four following arguments have prevailed in liberal ecumenism, each unintentionally eliciting disunity. Each is a mistake “if-then” correlation:
1. If we can just get together on some common ethical standards, then we will therefore achieve the unity of believers.
2. If we could have the same open ecumenical feelings or experiences, then we would feel our unity.
3. If we could just be open to dialogue, then we would grow toward unity.
4. If we merge the separate institutions based on different memories created by the Spirit, then we would experience our unity through an institution, and thus we now must renew our commitment to the institutional vestiges of ecumenism.
All these attempts are alike in one way: they put unity ahead of truth. They squander the truth to achieve a superficial unity. All are mistaken. All spawn disillusionment with efforts at Christian unity. Together they have resulted in the ecumenical turbulence that now buffets us.
All misfire for the same reason: they base unity on something other than the truth, by avoiding the only basis from which Christian unity can emerge—that is the revealed Word whose hearing is enabled by the Holy Spirit and received through faith. (111)
On a related topic, for understanding liberal theology there is no better source than the three volumes by Gary Dorrien. After working through Dorrien, I tried to summarize Protestant liberalism with seven statements in an earlier blog post.
4 Comments
It’s interesting how, in yesterday’s excerpt, it was certain types of dialogue that were the problem. Now it is dialogue per se that is suspect. How did that happen? I suspect that this is one of those people that want folks to have implicit faith in something someone says.
Although I agree with the post, differences are not resolved simply by appealing to scripture. Many independent groups and churches and many denominations think they are “biblical,” although they would disagree one with the other. In terms of blogging, how many have been successful convincing others to abandon opposing views in comments to a post? Something more is needed. There still must be people recognized as having authority that others will follow. The Jerusalem Council worked because there were those ordained and charged with keeping the faith that not only knew the scripture (from the Old Testament and as it was presently being revealed, preached and taught in their midst) but who were recognized as being ordained by God with the authority to speak to the controversies at hand. In today’s terribly splintered church, where are those trustworthy men with the authority to decide the truth of a matter in a way that will be recognized and followed by others? Even good “Bereans” need to follow godly, ordained authority of other men. It seems to me the proper course for any man and his family is to associate with a denomination that has a good structure for decision making on a local and appellate level and that has a good history of deciding disputes and be willing to submit to the godly authority within that denomination.
[...] Unity in Truth – Kevin DeYoung [...]
So what does a Biblically-Faithful, Confessionally-Faithful Christian or Pastor in the RCA do when confronted by theological liberals who want to base an institutional unity in the RCA on something other than Biblical Truth?
How long do you want to keep on dialoguing and conversing? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? More? What happens to souls as you keep conversing and dialoguing? What example is being shown to the next generation when you keep conversing and dialoguing with no clear end in sight?