The Episcopal Church recently conducted a church trial for one of its bishops who had ordained a priest who was a practicing homosexual. The bishop was acquitted, the court determining that the Episcopal Church had no “core doctrine” which had been violated by the bishop.
Unbelievably, the court said that no teaching of the church would be enforceable if it were seriously challenged or widely questioned! Think of that! (“If anyone questions it, we can’t enforce it.”) Then, with a straight face, the court went on to call for unity and rededication to the mission of the church. But one would ask, “Mission based on exactly what?”
This, of course, raises the important question of, “In what does the church find its unity?” David Mills, an Anglican evangelical, addresses this issue in a journal article and says: “Neither the unity of the Church nor an effective witness to the world are even possible without a common doctrine.” It is the classic doctrines centered around Christ–His life, death, and resurrection–that provide unity and cohesion for the church.
Mills goes on to point out that mainline churches try to find unity around other things than doctrine, justifying it all the while by saying, “We aren’t a doctrinal or ‘confessional’ church.” We Brethren have heard that before, haven’t we?
According to Mills, there are four alternatives in which we try to find unity. First, churches claim a common ethical standard. That is, while we may differ greatly in doctrine, we all recognize the same moral laws. We may disagree about the Resurrection, but we agree that murder, adultery, and racism are wrong. But, says Mills, a common ethical standard requires a common doctrine. Those who explain away Paul’s writings as nonauthoritative will not accept his teaching on human sexuality. Without a common doctrine, there is no common ethical standard.
Second, we invoke a common religious experience. This view says, “All of us have some experience with the divine, we just express it in different ways.” But the problem these days is that some experience God through His son, Jesus Christ; others claim to experience Him or “Her” through the deities of pagan religions or in the depths of their own psyches, or through nature. Without common doctrine, however, there can be no common religious experience–and no unity.
Third, we invoke a common process, that is, “dialogue.” Unity is not to be found in our answers but in our questions, in opening ourselves to another’s insights, in coming to know each other better. But “dialogue” will not produce unity because, if it is sincere, it must come to conclusions about basic beliefs. Without a common doctrine, dialogue will lead only to further disagreement (or dishonesty–“Look at how we can talk”).
Fourth, when all else fails, says Mills, we invoke a common institution. This view would claim, “Let’s celebrate our diversity; after all, we’re all Brethren!” But unity has be more than going about under the same name. A social club might include those who believe Scripture authoritative as well as those who believe it must be revised to satisfy new demands–but a Church can’t be that inclusive. Without common doctrine, the Church will have no real unity.
Brethren have tried all of these alternative sources for unity, haven’t we? We even call our lack of unity “diversity” and say it is a wonderful strength. The pressing dilemma is how to hold a church accountable, with love and civility, when it is squandering its theological heritage for supposed relevance and academic respectability.
Paul reminds those who are elders that they must “encourage others by sound doctrine” and also “refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). The two-fold task is to proclaim “sound doctrine” and also “refute” those who oppose it by exposing their error and trying to convince them they are wrong. The latter task is especially difficult, and these days, will draw charges that one is being “mean-spirited, narrow, intolerant, exclusive, etc.” But it must be done.