The Beauty And Excellence of Destroying Unity

Suppose you met some people who told you they were believers. They stated they believed in the God of scriptures, believed that Jesus was his Son, that he died for their sins and that he rose from the dead. They believed salvation was by faith and grace, and that loving God and loving people were of supreme import. They were in close community with each other, attended their church weekly, loved their families and friends, served each other in sickness and in health, were openly evangelistic, took care of the widows and orphans, and created a loving environment in which they were able to thrive and affect the community around them. They only had one idiosyncratic belief. They believed that you could only be saved if you followed the OT dietary laws and restrictions. Other than that they were all good.

Could you be in unity with them? Would you let them attend your Church and mix and mingle with you and your friends?  Would you consider them brothers and sisters in Christ and give them an audience as they explained their beliefs? What sort of actions would categorize your love and affection for them? Would you welcome them with open arms? Have ecumenical Church services with them? Would you draw them into your community and give them free reign to integrate themselves into your own service? Would you let them teach you about why they had their unique beliefs about how salvation relates to the dietary laws? Would you let those beliefs get in the way of unity, or would you dismiss that as ultimately a non-issue that you refuse to let divide the two groups?  How united do you believe you could be with them?

Paul certainly answered that question for us. Swap out circumcision for dietary laws and you are essentially painted a picture of the Judaizers. These were men who believed that unless you has your genitals cut as a sign of your obedience to the ancient mosaic laws, you could not be saved. And so far from acquiescing to that particular theological nuance and dismissing it as simply a difference in opinion, a non-issue- something that did not matter in light of their love for each other, Paul warns people about them and ferociously attacks both them and their theological particulars.  He writes in Phillipans 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh” He further goes on to castigate them, declaring that they were not even true Christians, saying  ”Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in–who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery– to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” Galatians 2:4-5

While some may have argued that this was unfair because the Judaizers were kind to others and were well liked and respected in the community, or that they believe certain key essentials, or would affirm certain theological concepts if given the freedom to tweak them in a small way, or that the world might see these divisions and judge the Church for that, Paul didn’t make their benevolence,  kindness or generosity the dividing line of unity and Christian acceptance, but rather made their theology and their proper understanding of soteriology the issue which divided and consequently defined them.

Paul and his team did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour. Why? So that the truth of the gospel would remain with them. While some people may have suggested that they remain united with these people and that we ought not to let theological differences divide, Paul is quick to dismiss that. He understood that they posed a serious threat to the gospel of grace and the universality of the Christian mission. For this reason his very goal was to divide. He called them evil men who were dogs and unbelievers. He purposefully disrupted and destroyed any hope of unity that people on either side may have desired because he recognized that unity at the expense of truth is no unity at all. It is nothing but shallow and meaningless symbolism which breeds superficiality.

[Contributed by Dustin Germain]

Please help maintain this site by donating here.
Facebook Comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Kevin Lackey says:

    I call it the gospel plus. Equation : the gospel + anything = a different gospel. Can you name some examples?

  2. JD Hall says:

    Excellent article, Dustin. Indeed, Christ has nothing in common with Belial, and light has no business with darkness. What unifies us is doctrinal orthodoxy in belief and practice. Outside of that, there’s nothing to unify around.

  3. Thanks Jordan. And Kevin, we know from the first few verses of Galatians 5 that if you accept any part of the law to add with your grace, then you are obligated to keep the whole, and as a result you are necessarily severed from Christ. That’s what’s so nefarious about this. People think that they’re just adding a small work to it, when in reality they don’t understand that a small work in their eyes is in actually a mountain of law foisted upon them- crashing down upon their souls with impossible demands that no one can bear. Worst still,, is that accompanied with it is a demand to be justified by it in perfection- what a wretched, hopeless, helpless thought. And so what are the works that people try add? The BIG THREE are usually baptism, Sabbath keeping, and various acts of morality where the idea if you want to keep your salvation, you must do certain things or avoid certain things.

    I actually like bringing up the question as a way to test people’s discernment. You can learn a lot about someone’s understanding of the gospel and whether they will be a good friend in the trenches and in the foxholes as we stand and find our battles to fight and hills to die one. Just ask whether or not they would break unity with the nice guy with the small idiosyncratic belief.

    What gospel+somethings have you come up with, Kevin?

  4. Josh says:

    Good points! But, and not to nit-pick, there is one, small typo I caught: “…believed that unless you ‘HAS’ your genitals cut as a…”

Leave a Reply