Unity: Relationships

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Part four of a series. Read part three HERE

In this series I have examined the challenge that the Church of God has faced living up to its core distinctive of Christian unity. My last installment called for a posture of repentance, where we admit our failings in order to allow God to bring about a new day in us.

I reiterate that it is not enough just to be critical of our past and current realities. Tangible, constructive solutions must be considered and implemented. Admittedly, this is not easy; however, we are obligated to make every effort possible to bring about visible unity, even if the path getting there has bumps and detours along the way.

Aware of the dangers of being hyper-idealistic and overly simplistic, I wish to present a framework that would enable us both to talk about the challenges of unity, and to practically work toward it. This is not a program, a commission, or a “40-day” emphasis, etc. Changing culture is hard work. In fact, this is ultimately about changing hearts, an even more formidable task. And, while the Holy Spirit is the one who resets us, following through on a new approach to unity could take years (even a generation or more) for us to realize the fruits of this paradigm shift.

In short, I propose that our conversations and actions around unity must be centered in an uncompromised commitment to relationships first. At first glance, this seems absurdly obvious. Digging deeper, however, this is where we have struggled.

While we are likely to affirm that relationships are important, the difficulties we have had stem from the fact that we have found it more convenient to use doctrinal unity as the measuring stick for determining success or failure. (Of course, this is strange for a movement without a creed and that has often found itself in the wild west of doctrinal conformity). As a holiness movement, we have been fixated on purity, and in doing so, we have often depersonalized the church, settling for a more abstract understanding of what the Body of Christ should look like.

This was not always the case for our movement. Despite the hard, rigid lines that our earliest pioneers sometimes drew, they were prone to work out their theological differences in the context of personal encounters. Campmeetings were the prime venue for this (a point I have made on several previous occasions), and some fairly contentious issues were debated there. The saints knew each other, and they would look into each other’s eyes as they argued their convictions, even if at times it was not always pleasant. Over the years, however, as the movement spread geographically and culturally, the tight relational bonds were weakened, and the opportunities for genuine, personal connections are now the exception, not the norm. Our face-to-face encounters have been largely drifting toward less nuanced and impersonal ones, expressed through institutions, organizations, committees, policies, and more. The situation is even more dire today as technology has given us the illusion of disintermediation, where tools like social media make it now extremely easy to lob grenades at each other, eroding whatever precarious unity we might still have.

We are all aware that Scripture itself presents unity as a relational construct. The constitution of Christian unity comes from Jesus’ heartfelt prayer recorded in John 17. Read verses 21 to 23, in particular, and we see Jesus laying out a relational foundation for the church and its mission. As Jesus and the Father are one, and we are one in Christ, the church is to be one in order that the world would experience this super-relational reality and ultimately, God.

So, what does this relationship-centric unity look like? There are several essential foundations:

1. Relationships within the Body of Christ are paramount and must be defended.

2. Differences in belief and practice are to be worked out in face-to-face dialogue.

3. Whenever relationships are threatened or fractured we should lament and continue working for restoration.

If it is not evident, I am saying that because we recognize the biblical call for unity, we will do everything possible to see that established and maintained, even when we find ourselves at points of major disagreements with others in the Body of Christ. It means that we will assume the best in others and avoid snap judgements, condemnations, and gossip. We will commit ourselves to work out our differences in actual conversations; NOT tribunals, study commissions, missives, or pulpit pronouncements.

We will work out our differences in conversations; NOT tribunals, study commissions, missives, or pulpit pronouncements

I must also state that unity is about more than resolving divergent beliefs and convictions. It applies equally to bringing us together despite the cultural differences that tend to get exacerbated and keep us apart.

Of course, I anticipate and understand the pushback to my thoughts. Some will see them as naïve. Others will want stronger safeguards for doctrinal conformity. To this latter point, let me be clear that what we believe and how we live out our faith is important. It is not an either/or situation. I am saying that if we are truly “Jesus is the Subject” people, then we will begin our journey with others based on their confession of Jesus, and work out any disagreements on secondary matters in the context of our personal relationship with them. Yes, at times, after doing the hard work, we may have to call out heresy or bad behavior. But, this should happen only after careful, prayerful consideration, and communication.*

Building unity around a commitment to relationships demands great exertion and sometimes can be messy. This is why, in our “quick fix” society, we frequently look for shortcuts, and most of these are at the expense of the opportunities we have to fellowship with our sisters and brothers who may look, think, and act differently from us. Sitting at a table, pouring over whatever threatens to divide us, will mean entering into the slow process of respectful listening, not just talking. We must be open to the possibility that we have something to learn and discover along the way.

Each of us must begin to practice and model this form of relationship-centered unity. It means literally finding occasions for getting together (in person, ideally) with those we struggle accepting, simply because of their declaration of faith in Jesus. In tandem with this, it means refraining from the temptation to disparage those with whom we differ.

Beyond our individual efforts, we must find ways to instill this approach into our organizational life. This will require leaders who are prepared to champion the priority and language around the sacred nature of relationships within the church. The goal should be to avoid the harmful ways which we have tended to institutionalize the resolution of our differences; but instead encourage and demand the priority of face-to-face dialogue across the Body of Christ, both within and outside our movement. This becomes especially relevant and urgent considering some of the very contentious issues that are currently driving us apart.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: How committed is the Church of God to unity? Are we prepared to live it out, and not just talk about it? Are we committed to each other, and to the larger mission of being leaven for unity in the universal church? Are we willing to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE for the sake of fulfilling this calling that we believe God has placed upon us?

As for me, I’m ready.

*For those wanting to pursue the nature of this tension further, I would encourage you to explore the work of Dr. Paul G. Hiebert and subsequently others, as it pertains to “bounded sets” and “centered sets.” The distinctions could be very helpful for our purposes.