# Unity, theological agreement, and the issue of priority



## Davidius (Jun 25, 2008)

Here's a question that has been bouncing around in my mind as I've considered the mass amount of disunity in the Church, and have struggled under the burden of feeling the need to have it all together theologically: could the biblical commands regarding unity have priority over theological agreement? 

In other words, the current unspoken agreement seems to be that we'll all get together once everyone can agree on everything. Wouldn't a more gracious, Christlike approach be to create visible unity (on something like the early ecumenical creeds?) and then work out our differences within a common fellowship? Perhaps God's example in coming to us while we were sinners could be a precedent for this.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Wouldn't a more gracious, Christlike approach be to create visible unity (on something like the early ecumenical creeds?) and then work out our differences within a common fellowship? Perhaps God's example in coming to us while we were sinners could be a precedent for this.


Interesting thoughts. How would (if it does) the visible unity you're talking about differ from the present-day ecumenical movement?


----------



## Davidius (Jun 25, 2008)

blhowes said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't a more gracious, Christlike approach be to create visible unity (on something like the early ecumenical creeds?) and then work out our differences within a common fellowship? Perhaps God's example in coming to us while we were sinners could be a precedent for this.
> ...



Are you referring to the liberal movement? I doubt they would affirm the content of the ecumenical creeds. 

I guess in general I'm not exactly sure what it would, or should look like. Does unity mean that we need to have one giant general assembly? I don't know. 

One example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, though, is that I cannot receive the Lord's Supper in a Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod fellowship. Getting rid of close/d communion seems like it could be a good start, and finding some way to have discipline acknowledged universally.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2008)

I think there is a virtue in unity over dying on every single theological hill.

As you get away from the core of the Gospel and into ecclesiology and eschatology there is much more room in working together in the neediest areas.

If a people group has NO believers and no indigenous vehicle for spreading the Gospel and no Scripture in their own language, I would love to support a Presbyterian effort in there, or even an effort by a broad evangelical missions group.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 25, 2008)

David,

I don't see how it is possible to have good unity across Presbyterian/Lutheran lines (for example), when there is such an incredible amount of (ecclesiastical) disunity amongst Confessional Presbyterians (each of whom claim to have the Westminster Confession as their basis on unity)


----------



## Stephen (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



Why can't you not take communion in the MO Synod? I have taken it a number of times and there was no issue. As Reformed people we practice closed communion to those who are children who have not made a profession. unbaptised people, unbelievers and those under discipline.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 25, 2008)

One need not bring up the World Council of Churches or any bad examples of ecumenical goals.

Look instead at The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and also the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. This brings wide groups of folks together without sacrificing the core of the Gospel.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 25, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> David,
> 
> I don't see how it is possible to have good unity across Presbyterian/Lutheran lines (for example), when there is such an incredible amount of (ecclesiastical) disunity amongst Confessional Presbyterians (each of whom claim to have the Westminster Confession as their basis on unity)



I guess I don't either, and it really disheartens me. It seems to me as though the Presbyterians and Reformed, at least, could have one general assembly and allow for congregations to decide on things like EP until it gets sorted out. I mean, we were able to work through such esoteric issues as the Trinity and hypostatic union. 



Stephen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > blhowes said:
> ...



I believe I read on their website that they practice closed communion.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > David,
> ...



They practice closed communion but I do not know what they mean, because they generally do not restrict believers from outside the MO Synod. While I certainly do not agree with some of their doctrine, they are a solid group. Congratulations to you on your marriage and best wishes to your wife. May the Lord bless your union and may you find great joy in your life together.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 25, 2008)

*Helpful Book*

Davidius, 

To spur your thinking, I recommend John Frame's _Evangelical Reunion._ He discusses the relationship between unity and doctrine and discusses ideas for pursuing unity. It is a short book.

You can find it on his website - The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > David,
> ...



I know. But that is the truth of the matter now. I would get all in a dander and criticize the many small and micro Presbyterian denominations for separating over a multitude of issues, but first I would need to get the bear out of my own eye (so to speak) when we have two large Presbyterian denominations that have identical (on paper at least) Confessional Standards and interpretation on such issues (EP, etc.) in the OPC and PCA, and we can't move anywhere closer to unity than we are now.

I'm not even talking about formal integral unity yet. We can't even have pastors serve in the other denomination without licensure.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 25, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



I see. Well, I'm getting in a dander as a member of a small/micro denomination.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Are you referring to the liberal movement? I doubt they would affirm the content of the ecumenical creeds.


I'm referring to churches who would affirm the content of the creeds. When I was growing up in the Methodist church, from time-to-time many of the churches in our area would go over to a local catholic church and have a joint service, with somebody from each church participating in a part of the service. I don't think any of the churches would have any problem affirming the content of the Apostle's creed and some of the others. In my church, as I recall, we'd recite the Apostle's creed at every service.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 25, 2008)

An interesting discussion, and perhaps not the one for this particular thread, would be what exactly are the issues we should defend at the expense of unity? The Apostle's Creed seems like a great affirmation of faith...until you realize that the Roman Catholics use the exact same creed, and I do not think we can be unified with them in good conscience. Obviously the Westminster Confession isn't a good unifier, as has been pointed out in this thread already. So what are the essentials that trump unity? I think we all know the obvious, but the "peripheral" issues we can agree to disagree about are far less clear...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 25, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > blhowes said:
> ...



http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2620


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 25, 2008)

Since we all don't agree on how many Ecumenical Councils there were, or on the proper wording of the creeds produced, I don't see how even those can be a "basis for unity", other than the Apostle's Creed--which is pretty spare as far as creeds go, and open to such wide interpretation as those of the true gospel and "another" gospel can recite it!

I think we are as "close as possible" right now, just as we are, as far at the BIG picture goes. I agree with Fred, if there is progress to be made, it has to be toward those who are most like we are, in an effort to get rid of sinful, unhelpful division. Some of our churches have committees on ecumenicity. So, its not as though no one is talking and working about such serious issues.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 25, 2008)

What we should do is concentrate on is allowing communion to all members (not under discipline) of true churches, respecting discipline in other true churches and treating each other as members of the same visible church, albeit a church that has certain political and theological divisions. 

We are fallen men and women and should not work for the impossible (complete unity) but for the world to see that we do behave as brothers and sisters.


----------



## MW (Jun 25, 2008)

The question of unity is clearly taught in Eph. 4, where we find an *essential* unity of all believers to be maintained, and a *confessional* unity of believers to be attained. The same exhortation to maintaining/attaining is taught in Phil. 3:15, 16 on an indivudual level. Separate denominations are a testimony to an attained confessional unity, and should not be regarded as a biblical anomaly. It is better to have a separate denomination than to have a part of Christ's testimony swallowed up by an unbiblical toleration. Problems only emerge when denominations estrange and unchurch one another where they agree on the essentials.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 25, 2008)

Davidius said:


> It seems to me as though the Presbyterians and Reformed, at least, could have one general assembly and allow for congregations to decide on things like EP until it gets sorted out.



I guess to some extent, this could be said to already exist for the most prominent Presbyterian and Reformed churches today, namely through NAPARC.


----------

