"When ISIS behead a Christian they don't ask which denomination they are. So why are we fighting eachother?" So said Nicky Gumbel at the HTB Leadership Conference in the Royal Albert Hall ealier this month. It's a good question. In light of the terrible persecutions Christians are facing around the world, is it time we urgently reconsider what church unity should look like? I have been working for Christian unity for many years now and I am delighted by the resurgence of interest in this important question. As we encounter not just the persecution of Christians in places like Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Pakistan but also a changing relationship between secularised western societies and the church I believe it is time to reconsider and recover unity of the church. I sense I am not alone. The big question for me is what kind of unity are we seeking?
I have worked with or for unity movements since my 20s, from an organisation that sought to bring a united gospel witness on university campuses, to the Evangelical Alliance both in Albania and the UK, and now at London School of Theology (which is a specifically and deliberately non-denominational college) and my charity Home for Good which seeks to unite the church to action on behalf of the most vulnerable children in the UK. Over the years I have come across three different approaches to unity, all of which have both their merits and their flaws.
1. Oppositional Unity
As the old adage goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Some say this is just good politics looking for common ground to build alliances to a mutually agreeable end. However this sounds to me more like the House of Cards than the household of God. During the debates within the Church of England over women bishops there was an unusual amount of collaboration between conservative reformed groups and anglo-catholics as both could unite in their opposition to women in ecclesial leadership.
Similarly some of the wranglings of Gafcon have found unity between African bishops and British leaders because of shared views on gay marriage but looking in from the outside, there still seems to be very little non-colonial co-operation between African and Western church leaders. The silver lining on the cloud of oppositional unity is that while fighting a perceived common enemy a richer relationship can develop and prejudices can be broken down.
2. Exclusive Uniformity
Another way of achieving unity is to demonise everyone outside of your united group. This approach is not unique to the church. Sadly it has been used in an extreme form by National Socialists in Germany, or in the genocide in Rwanda where people that didn't fit into a particular racial group are dehumanised and labelled as vermin or cockroaches. The desire to find unity and security by giving labels to those who don't fit in the "in group" is sadly present in the church too. Perjorative labels are given to people that don't qualify for our selfmade groupings. Historically these labels have been words like 'fundamentalist' or 'liberal' but nowadays it tends to be labels such as 'traditionalist', 'homophobe', 'feminist' or 'chauvinist'.
A Christian approach to unity must recognise the equal dignity and value that all people made in the image of God deserve but also the utmost seriousness of both doctrinal and ethical standards. The same apostle Paul who labels those who insist on circumcision as 'mutilators of the flesh' or 'evil dogs' can also pray that he could be excluded from the gospel in order that they might be included.
The strength of this approach to unity is that it does not back down from the tough questions of doctrine and practice and yet it holds those that differ from us with the utmost love and compassion. The holy tension demonstrated by Paul of a genuine passion for truth and righteousness with a deep love for those that he opposes is often sadly missing in our conversations about unity.
3. Inclusive Fuzziness
This approach is the polar opposite of Exclusive Uniformity - indeed, it's often a deliberate reaction against the perceived lack of love and hospitality that it demonstrates. This method plays down the differences between groups and sometimes opts for a lowest common denominator approach. It's criticised for being strong on relationships but weak on doctrine. In its most extreme form it resembles the appeasement approach that Neville Chamberlain took in his 1938 negotiations with the Nazis, finding 'peace in our time' where there was none to be found and simply putting a positive spin and a thin smile over genuine dysfunction, hostility and danger.
The weakness of this approach is that in order to maintain friendship it is often tempting to avoid the more difficult conversations. Whether we like it or not, biblical Christianity very clearly articulates that there is content to the gospel and there is a doctrinal heart to the faith. In Galatians, Paul is not afraid to pronounce a curse on all those that would preach a gospel that differs from that of the apostles. This is the same Paul who wrote the chapter on love in 1 Corinthians 13. For Paul doctrinal purity and unconditional love are not in conflict.
The strength however is that an ethos of friendship is often a great place for rigorous conversation to take place. In the same way, it is easier to hear criticism from a friend as the knowledge that there is genuine affection lowers our defences and allows for a greater degree of vulnerability and openness to change. In all genuine relationships there is an openness to the other, a humility that recognises there is always something to learn from people we don't agree with.
4. Bold Humility
So is there a better way forward? Perhaps drawing on the strengths of all three of the approaches mentioned we can find a different way of striving for unity.
Looking for common ground
This doesn't have to take the form of single-issue co-belligerence, but the establishment of some shared interest or convictions can be a great place to begin. Take for example the need for solidarity with brothers and sisters facing persecution, or the shared challenge of secularism.
Being upfront and open about the genuine differences
Timothy was counselled by the apostle Paul that "the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline." (2 Timothy 1:7) Seeking unity does not necessitate a timidity when it comes to issues of truth and practice. The creeds of the Church through the ages have sought to clarify what are the essentials that we need to hold to unswervingly and what are the secondary issues that there is room to be more flexible on.
Operating out of a commitment to love and humility
Having the courage of our convictions does not mean we have to be arrogant. Jesus modelled the perfect tension between confidence and humility. If we are seeking the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17 then we need to go about it in a Christlike way. If not we undermine the very unity we seek.
Our world is fragmenting on many levels. The gap between rich and poor continues to increase, both nationally and globally. Race riots are erupting in the USA. Militant atheism is undermining the faith of believers in the west while militant Islam is executing Christians around the Middle East. In the meantime Christians expend a lot of energy on duplicate ministries, competitive church planting or all-out internal conflict. Nicky Gumbel is right to call us again to unity; the question is what kind of unity it will be? We must push forward towards the costly, genuine and powerful unity that Jesus prayed for:
'My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' John 17:20-22
