Resources

We have been considering what is behind the L.L.F. project. We are now to consider “what does the Bible have to teach us about good disagreement, bad disagreement and, importantly, discipline?” However, disagreement in the Church only comes when there is some disunity in the Church.

Therefore, first, we ought to start with what the Bible teaches about unity. But “unity” where? Answer in the church. But the “church” defined as what - one, the local congregation; or, two, the connected church, the Church of England – the denomination; or, three, the Catholic (truly Catholic or, using the Latin form, Universal) Church. And, of course, at all three levels bearing in mind the great English Reformed theologian, Richard Hooker’s comment:

For lack of diligent observing the difference, first between the Church of God mystical and visible, then between the visible sound and corrupted, sometimes more sometimes less, the oversights are neither few nor light that have been committed.

However, first there are some basic principles to be applied always in the Church across the board, so to speak. Jesus supremely taught these principles in John 17 which is one of the profoundest chapters of the Bible and about which whole books have been written. But John 17.20-23 are so relevant to us on this subject. For they are where Jesus prays for the whole church present and future and says this:

“I do not ask for these only [the apostles], but also for those who will believe in me through their word. That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”

His prayer is for every believer then and since – so in every age and in every place. What then does Jesus desire for these people and so makes the subject of his prayer? It is unity:

…that they may all be one;…that they may be one even as we are one;…that they may become perfectly one.

But what is the nature of this unity? It is unity with the apostles (John 17.20-21a):

“I do not ask for these only [the apostles], but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one [apostles and believers]

Jesus prayer first of all, then, was for unity – an historical unity for all believers in every age with the apostles. He wants a historical continuity between the apostles and the post-apostolic church. On this John Stott writes well:

In other words Jesus’ prayer was first and foremost…that the church’s faith might not change with the changing years but remain recognizably the same, and that the church of every generation might merit the epithet ‘apostolic’ because of its loyalty to the message and mission of the apostles. Christian unity begins then as unity with the apostles (through the New Testament which makes their teaching available to us); without this, the church’s unity would not be distinctively Christian.

Then, secondly Jesus prayed that Christ’s people would enjoy unity with the Father and the Son (John 17.21):

…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

That is quite staggering. Jesus prays that our relationship with each other should mirror the unity Jesus has with his Father, and so that we may be united with the Father and the Son. And such unity is what impresses the world and leads people to Christ (John 17.21b):

…that the world may believe that you have sent me.

That is to say, they believe in Jesus (the promised / sent one) – the Messiah, who is Christ the Lord. And such unity leads to a realization that God loves everyone in the world – he is truly a loving God (John 17.23b):

that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

It is so true. United Christian fellowship is evangelistic. Testimonies of so many are that their turning to Christ had a lot to do because of the fellowship in a local church or a Christian group. I remember the late Michael Green, a great evangelist himself, saying people in his experience turn to Christ for one of three things, experiencing forgiveness in Christ, finding meaning in the Gospel and, not least, discovering fellowship within the Church.

So how does that fundamental unity play out in the local church? Well, the Bible clearly teaches in Paul’s letter to the Philippians that there must be behaviour worthy of Christ and so putting effort into working for unity and humility in the local church all round. In Philippians 1.27 Paul writes:

Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that…I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel.

And in Philippians 2.2-3 he says:

Being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

And key workers have to beware. Paul had to (Philippians 4.2) entreat Euodia and…Syntyche to agree in the Lord. There was an issue between them. So much for basic principles and some practice of Christian unity. But secondly distinctions have to be made, for it is never unity at any price. Peter Meiderlin, a 17th century Lutheran theologian’s advice on this, is helpful. In defence of Lutheranism in 1620, he wrote those now famous words (wrongly attributed to Augustine):

If we would but observe ‘unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all things’, our affairs would certainly be in the best possible situation.’

But in England it was the Puritan Richard Baxter who in his book The Reformed Pastor popularised those words in 1656. It is said to have been his “favourite quotation”. That teaching, of course, was based on Paul and particularly what he said in Romans and 1 Corinthians. For Paul the issue cropped up over Jewish legal restrictions on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Grecian/Gentile eating with pagans with their connection to the worship of Aphrodite (the goddess of sex).

But what did Paul teach about essentials, and non-essentials (sometime called by the Greek word ‘adiaphora’ meaning indifferent)? Well, Tom Wright, in the book Good Disagreement? - grace and truth in a divided church, makes a helpful suggestion that, first, on the Jewish side:

any practices that functioned as symbols [like circumcision] dividing different ethnic groups could not be maintained as absolutes [i.e. as essentials but they were not forbidden if treated as helpful but non-essential] within this new single family [i.e. of Jews and Greeks/Gentiles – the Church].

And, secondly, on the Greek/Gentile side:

any practices [like sex outside marriage] that belonged to the dehumanizing, anti-creation world of sin and death could likewise not be maintained [even if some thought they didn’t matter] within this new-creation family [i.e. the Church].

Wright then explains:

The first principle explains why certain things are now ‘indifferent’; the second, why certain other things are not. This is the difference between the two kinds of difference [non-essential and essential].

And it is crystal clear that the main activities and temptations with which the Living in Love and Faith project relates (gender, sexuality and marriage) are of the second sort – “practices that belong to the dehumanizing, anti-creation world of sin and death.”
The result is that because (to repeat the Bishop’s statement):

…there is in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings; [and] sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable

(Because of that) there can be no disagreement over the fact that the Bible and the Church of England (according to Canon A5) forbids teaching and behaviour contrary to that summary. Therefore, where there is such contrary teaching and behaviour that is forbidden, there must be Godly discipline.

Thirdly, we need to note, how in Revelation 1-2, the risen Lord who says (Revelation 1.17-18):

I am the first and the last and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades

how he dealt with, and then instructed the church about, the problems we are facing in LLF; and then we need to obey his clear teaching. Revelation chapter 1 speaks of the risen Lord in the midst of seven lampstands, and Revelation 1.20 says:

The seven lampstands are the seven churches.

These were local congregations in Asia Minor but in a wider connection and connected through the risen Lord; but they were by no means model churches – justifying Hooker’s comment we had earlier. But relevant for us and LLF and the Church of England, at this point in its history, is the Church at Thyatira which was in the smallest town of the seven, but received the longest letter of the seven. And this seems to be a church with much good in it. Christ says to her (Revelation 2.19):

I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.

This was a loving church not like the orthodox church at Ephesus which Christ commends for their orthodoxy, but to whom he had to say (Revelation 2. 2-4):

I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

Their good works at Ephesus were toil, patient endurance and expelling those who are evil. Their problem was that they had abandoned the love they had at first (Revelation 2.4) and that is serious. By contrast, in Thyatira the first of their good works was love. But their problem was that they did bear with those who were evil, and they tolerated Jezebel a false prophetess who taught Christian people that all sorts of sex outside marriage was OK. So Christ addressed the leadership of the church in Thyatira like this (Revelation 2.20-23):

…I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practise sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

So Jezebel was not at this point a leadership problem. For Christ himself would deal with her, seemingly without mercy because she just carried on with her non-biblical practice and teaching in regard to sexual relationships. But those who followed her teaching and example had a chance to repent. And that is why there was a major problem with the angel or messenger, in the church - the vicar or senior minister, or leadership team (or the bishop if in the town there were a number of connected house-churches). And the first half of Revelation 2.20 spells out what this major problem was as we heard:

that you tolerate that woman Jezebel.

This messenger or vicar or bishop was allowing Jezebel house room in his fellowship or failing to stop her teaching others and leading them morally astray.

So what should those of us in Church leadership do about them – the Jezebels and their male counterparts - in the Church of England? Are we tolerating the sexual immorality and the modern idolatry of the new paganism that goes along with it, by doing nothing? For Jezebel’s religion, of which she was a prophetess, obviously belongs to Tom Wright’s “dehumanizing, anti-creation world of sin and death.” Certainly, her teaching to promote sexual immorality and all the practice of sexual immorality that went along with it, were (Revelation 2.24):

what some call the deep things of Satan.

But this Jezebel, like Jezebel in the Old Testament (after whom this woman may have been nick-named), no doubt dressed to look stunning (2 Kings 9.30), and was efficient, clever and attractive. However, it is so easy to do nothing with such attractive and forceful people. But if you are in leadership you have to do something. And today, as the Church of England is at a critical point in the life of its history, this LLF project will have been worth it, if it forces some of us to take action and not tolerate in the modern church modern Jezebels, who are buying into the New Paganism and “what some call the deep things of Satan.”

But we must say “No!” to the devil (and modern Jezebels doing his work). But how we say “No!” may allow for good disagreement over a “one size fits all” approach. But “disagreeing” with the proposition “that we say ‘No!’” is most certainly “bad” and not to be tolerated.

However, finally, “unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and, charity in all things” will be needed as we are having to re-open the debate about remarriage of the divorced, women as presbyters or bishops, and, unexpectedly, the sabbath. For a wrong (as I judge) biblical exegesis regarding those subjects has been used to justify a Jezebel agenda, and so will need a reassessment.

Above all, humility will be required in the process. For the Church has a special problem because all Christian groupings have weak doctrines of man, the family and human society. But these are fundamental doctrines and the entire Church is trying to work at these. And it needs to because there is a huge gap. For the early Church was concerned with our doctrine of God, and, thank God, it clarified our beliefs regarding the Trinity and the Person and Work of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Reformation period then was concerned with Salvation and the Church, and thank God there was clarification as the result. So it seems, we in the modern period are called to work at these doctrines of man, the family and human society without any golden age of Christian anthropology or sociology to which to go back. But thank God for the work many are doing.