There’s been a lot of discussion related to the differences between central or essential doctrines and those that are secondary. Jesus said that a unified church is a testimony to the world (John 17:20-23), so how should we approach the distinctions and differences that are apparent in the variety of churches, denominations, and movements under the banner of “Christianity”?
I need to do some more exegetical work here, but I wonder if 1 Corinthians makes it simple. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “I appeal to you… that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Upon first reading, this makes me really disturbed the clear differences that exist within many churches. Our diversity doesn’t seem to be a strong suit here, does it?
But I wonder if v.17 is the qualifier? Paul says that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So perhaps the agreement and unity is all about the gospel, and less about our musical styles, models of church government, and understanding of how children are to be incorporated into the local church. Maybe it is as simple as unity and agreement around the gospel.
So the natural question arises… what is the gospel?
What do you think? Is the issue of church unity as simple as this? What would you add?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I think you’re trying to read a later theological development back into the text. Paul said there should be NO divisions or disagreements among you.
That may be true, Christian… but I’m not so sure. There seems to be some “latitude” allowed in certain situations. Here’s where I’m coming from…
(1) In 1 Cor. 7 there seems to be some freedom to take different views concerning remarriage and separation. Plus, don’t differing gifts determine the way that people may think about different issues (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7)?
(2) There’s also no consensus on food offered to idols in relation to actual practice (1 Cor. 8). There just seems to be a principle that everyone can agree upon, though they might disagree personally on where they stand on the food. Doesn’t Paul allow for that agreement and disagreement? Agreement on the core principle, disagreement on personal opinion?
These just seem to me to qualify Paul’s statement about being in agreement.
Plus, exegetically speaking, the culmination of that unity of mind and judgment is around the gospel, isn’t it? that’s the capstone of 1:17ff, right?
In each of those cases, Paul gives the inspired “right answer” though. In the marriage case, in chapter 7, I don’t see where he allows for differing views on the issue. He allows for differing applications depending on one’s unique situation, but I seriously doubt he allows differing viewpoints on something so important.
Also, I would suggest that issues of personal practice regarding marriage and diet are a far cry from heavy theological issues that affect the whole Church. Paul simply did not have our situation in mind when he penned 1 Corinthians. How could he? Apples and oranges my friend.
I agree that 1:17 is that capstone, the Gospel. However, in our present situation, “doctrines” have been eclipsed by everyone’s unique “vision”, “mission”, and “core values”. This is the new confessionalism. Many times, two churches “visions” are mutually exclusive. We can’t even agree on what our mission even is. This is an orthodoxy issue I think. If we don’t have the same mission as Jesus, how can we have the same Gospel?
This is why I think groups like the Gospel Coalition or – for the other end of the spectrum – the Emergent Village can function despite the fact that both groups have diversity doctrinally (whether stated or unstated). They each have the same vision and philosophy.
What do you think? Have I described the situation accurately?
I think we are talking past each other 🙂
Differing applications is exactly my point. The crucial issue, as I’m reading that passage, is unity of mind in regards to the gospel (and, I’d also agree, with the mission).
So… are you suggesting the unity should be in the vision and philosophy, or in the gospel/doctrine?
Both, though I am referring to churches primarily. Individuals and specialist ministries of course will be different. Although different times and places may dictate strategy, all churches are to be orthodox and orthoprax. But I guess I don’t see how we’re saying the same thing.
Going back to marriage and singleness in 1 Cor. 7; one person says remarriage after divorce is never permissable, another guy says only in cases of adultery or desertion by a non-believer, and yet another person says there are a host of reasons why remarriage is permissable after divorce. This is not healthy diversity! Too much is at stake, not the least of which is the perspicuity of Scripture. Again, we can’t read a 21st century evangelical situation into a 1st century context.