As our High Priest Jesus prayed to the Father just before his atoning death, "I do not ask for these only, 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" (John 17:20-21).
Considering this passage, it is beyond dispute that Christian unity is vitally important. What is disputed is the basis of such unity. What is the basis of Christian unity?
This question has been grappled with from the beginning of the New Testament church. Both Paul and John dealt with it when they combated “the circumcision party” (Galatians) and “antichrists” (1 John and 2 John), respectively. In both cases the Apostles demonstrated that doctrinal aberration is a legitimate cause for separation. Paul speaks of the doctrine of the circumcision party saying: “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9b), including in the "anyone" even the Apostles themselves. John speaks of the antichristian doctrine—denying the fleshiness of Jesus Christ—as being a sin that leads unto death (1 John 5:16). He teaches, “I do not say that one should pray for that” (1 John 5:16b), and, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 10-11). Also, Peter teaches that "sincere brotherly love" comes by "obedience to the truth," "the living and abiding word of God," which is "the good news that was preached" (1 Peter 1:22-25). According to the Apostles, Christian unity is dependent on doctrinal purity.
But this raises another question: What are the bounds of doctrinal purity? We’ve seen this question get worked out throughout our survey this semester. Each doctrinal disagreement is predicated on the idea that the Christian message has definite boundaries that, if crossed, compromise the message to the extent that unity cannot be maintained.
Unity in the Church Leading Up to the ReformationDuring the early church doctrinal disagreements were handled by general councils. The disagreement over Gentile inclusion recorded in Acts 15 is the first example of such a situation. Some Jewish converts were teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be Christians. In other words, they argued that circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were bases for unity. A group of representatives from the churches (i.e. the Apostles and some elders) met together in Jerusalem to rule on the matter. They decided that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law, and the matter was settled. While it was okay for one to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law, it was not necessary for Christian unity. Later, we see the same kind of scene played out at Nicaea on the divinity of Christ and the unity of the Godhead and at Chalcedon on the humanity of Christ and the unity of his person. In the early church, unity was maintained through the decisions of general councils upholding doctrinal purity.
During the Medieval period the western church shifted from maintaining unity by upholding doctrinal purity through the decisions of general councils to maintaining unity by simply exerting the supremacy of the papal office. The high point of this exertion was epitomized in a papal bull issued by Boniface VIII called
Unam Sanctam (1302). Boniface taught that the eternal destiny of one’s soul was dependent on one’s agreement with the pope. But what if there are multiple men claiming to be pope? To whom must one submit his will in order to be saved in that case? Obviously, a situation like that would be problematic, and it was.
About 70 years after Boniface issued the
Unam Sanctum a 40 year period (1378-1418) known as the Great Schism began. Multiple popes, three at one point, simultaneously claimed supremacy, each excommunicating the other(s). Eventually a shift back to the rule of general councils began called the Conciliar movement, and in 1418 the Council of Constance dismissed the rival popes and elected a new pope, Martin V. After Martin was installed the Conciliarists gradually lost influence as the papacy quickly re-exerted its supremacy.
Just prior to the Reformation on the European continent there was a growing unrest within the Roman church due to the strain of doctrinal pluralism and moral corruption, which had gradually increased during the medieval period. Some, later to be called “counter-reformers,” believed Christian unity was based on the authority of the papal office; therefore they called for moral reform through the exertion of papal power. Others, eventually called Protestant reformers, believed Christian unity and morality were based on doctrinal purity; therefore they called for doctrinal reforms according to Scripture, which had ultimate authority (i.e.
sola Scriptura) as the church's rule for faith and practice. It was this divergence in understanding that, in part, led to the Protestant reformers' separation from the Roman church, which most believed to be apostate.
But if it is true that doctrinal purity rather than apostolic office is the basis of unity, then, as we have already seen, the question becomes: What is doctrinal purity? And, as important, how do we reach agreement on what is pure doctrine?
As we saw in the early church, ecumenical councils pronounced orthodox judgments based on the theory of apostolic succession. This theory works well until large groups within the church disagree with one another, which of course happened. A split vote between equally credentialed “successors” fundamentally contradicts the theory and puts pressure on the system to centralize power. The fewer votes cast, the less chance for disagreement. And if fewer is better, then one is best; hence the papacy. After witnessing the failure of the theory of apostolic succession in the rise and abuses of the papacy, Protestants naturally distrusted the authoritative rulings of any one person based on the primacy of some presumed succession of office. Therefore, on the continent, they returned to the method of general councils pronouncing orthodoxy based on the inscripturated apostolic teaching, the Holy Scripture. This is how the doctrine of
sola Scriptura was worked out among the Protestants. No doubt it is an imperfect method, but it is, nonetheless, the biblical method (Acts 15). Indeed, whenever totally depraved sinners make truth claims, a certain plurality of checks and balances would seem appropriate.
Excursus on the Supposed Confusion Instigated by an Emphasis on Doctrinal PurityOftentimes those who participate in the Anglo-Catholic tradition disparage the Reformed belief that doctrinal purity is the basis of Christian unity. Far from respecting the sweet breezes of the God-breathed word, it is said, the only sense in which such an emphasis on purity unifies is that it creates a vortex for a whirlwind of damaging confusion. But the assumption behind that charge is
either that those deemed worthy to interpret Scripture by the church magisterium (e.g. the church magisterium of Roman Catholicism) have not themselves been confused,
or that doctrinal purity is just not that important (e.g. the latitudinarianism of Anglicanism). Of course, the first assumption is historically indefensible. There was and is just as much, if not more, doctrinal pluralism in the Anglo-Catholic tradition as there is in any other tradition. And the second assumption is theologically indefensible. It is a capitulation to latitudinarianism, which the Reformed tradition understands to be a violation of the moral law of God. All theological error is sin; therefore latitudinarianism can never be a stated ideal. Unity is simply too important to be framed upon a principle of latitudinarianism.
Unity During the English Reformation
At no time in church history has the struggle over the question of unity been more pronounced than the time of the English Reformation. It is a perfect microcosm for understanding this important doctrinal development. The early years were marked by sharp shifts in doctrine and practice. Then during the reign of Elizabeth I, the question “What is the basis of Christian unity?” came to the fore with the Elizabethan Settlement and the birth of Puritanism. Let’s take a brief look at this volatile period of church history.
The English Reformation began during the reign of King Henry VIII (1491-1547). Henry needed a male heir. His wife Kathryn had not provided one, so he decided to get out of the marriage. His tactic was to challenge the legitimacy of the marriage in the first place. Kathryn had been married to his brother Arthur. When Arthur died, Henry married her. Arguing that it was unlawful for him to marry his brother’s widow, he was able to obtain validation for divorce from his own English bishops
but not from Rome. In 1534 Parliament ended an almost decade-long dispute between Henry and the Roman pontiff by passing the Act of Supremacy, thus officially making King Henry the legal authority over the church in England. Through Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry issued his own articles of religion which retained auricular confession to priests, transubstantiation, reverencing images, and other Roman ceremonies.
When Henry died Edward VI came to the throne. King Edward instituted major Protestant doctrinal reforms, similar to those that had been instituted on the European continent. New articles of religion,
The 42 Articles, were published through Thomas Cranmer. But though the doctrinal reforms of Edward were strong, he failed to produce a definitive church polity in keeping with them.
At Edward’s death, the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor (1553) came to the throne. Known as “Bloody Mary,” she persecuted the Reformers and turned the church in England back to Roman Catholicism. Many religious refugees fled to the continent where they further developed their understanding of Reformed theology and church government.
When Mary died, Elizabeth I took the throne. She immediately stopped the Protestant persecutions in England. Those who had gone into exile returned with hopes of further reforming the church in England according to Protestant Reformed doctrine, but Elizabeth resisted all-out doctrinal reform. She reinstituted the Act of Supremacy, making herself the legal head of the church, and established a court of high commission to enforce the royal prerogative.
Elizabeth was a latitudinarian, instituting a
via media, “middle way,” between those with more Roman leanings and those with more Calvinistic leanings. Doctrinally speaking, she toned-down Cranmer’s original
42 Articles, which had been explicitly Calvinistic, to
39 Articles. She also passed the Act of Uniformity requiring that all clerics conform to the standards she set, which included following the
Book of Common Prayer in worship. For the non-conformists, the Act of Uniformity violated the Protestant ideal of
sola Scriptura, since it bound the consciences of men in matters indifferent (i.e.
adiaphora, doctrines or practices that were not prescribed either explicitly or deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture). This was considered idolatry and called “will worship.” These three moves, the Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the establishment of the
Book of Common Prayer, are known as the Elizabethan Settlement.
In 1562 at a royal convocation tensions came to a head. English reformers proposed six items, all of which ultimately had to do with the issue of liberty of conscience in secondary matters (The next three summary lists come from J. Ligon Duncan’s lecture at the 2006 Westminster Confession for Today Conference. The lecture can be downloaded for free from
RTS on iTunes):
Elizabeth’s refusal to all six proposals created two parties of reformers in England: conformists and non-conformists. Conformists were allowed to remain within Elizabeth’s church. But non-conformists, eventually called "precisionists" or "Puritans," were swiftly expelled. Here are some of their differences:
Anglicanism- Continuity of ritual from Roman Catholicism (RC) should be preserved. The people will be more open to doctrinal reform if the liturgy is not changed.
Puritanism- Continuity of ritual from RC should not be preserved. The ritual will influence the people to maintain the same old superstitions. Lex orandi lex credendi, How you worship is a reflection of what you believe.
Anglicanism- The sovereign has the right to correct all doctrine, worship, or discipline abuses in the church. This was proper and orderly.
Puritanism- The sovereign does not have the right to correct all doctrine, worship, or discipline abuses in the church. The sovereign has the responsibility to protect the church, but not correct it. Christ is the head of the church. He disciplines his church through its officers.
Anglicanism- RC was still to be considered a true church. Rome was corrupt but not apostate. (The Anglicans needed to hold on to this teaching in order to validate apostolic succession in their Episcopal ordinations.)
Puritanism- RC is not the true church. The pope is the Anti-Christ.
Anglicanism- The Bible does not contain an authoritative rule for church government and discipline. This issue is adiaphora ("things indifferent"), left to the discretion of civil magistrate.
Puritanism- The Bible does contain in principle an authoritative rule for church government.
Anglicanism- Early church practice, with the problems leading to later RC removed, is to be considered a proper standard for contemporary church government.
Puritanism- The practice of the early church is a proper standard for contemporary church government only insofar as it is in line with Scripture.
Anglicanism- It is right for adiaphora to be made necessary by the sovereign.
Puritanism- It is not right to make adiaphora a binding matter. Christ allows no indifferent human laws to be made necessary in his church. This is “will worship” or idolatry.
Anglicanism- There should be a uniformity of religion defined and enforced by the sovereign of the land (i.e. Erastianism).
Puritanism- There should not be a uniformity of religion defined and enforced by the sovereign. Church synods should define and enforce the uniformity of religion according to Scripture.
After forty years on the throne Elizabeth died. She was succeeded by James I, who was committed to prelacy in church government. The Puritans presented a millenary (i.e. one thousand signatures) petition to James at Hampton Court, which included five requests:
James rejected all but the last request, which is how the King James Version of the Bible came to be.
When James died, Charles I came to the throne. Through Archbishop William Laud, Charles clamped down on the Puritans. When they would not relent, Charles determined to wage war against them. He called a special session of parliament to ask for funding. The parliament (made up mostly of sympathizers to the non-conformists) countered by recommending that he tolerate the Puritans. James immediately dissolved the session. Not long afterward, he called parliament to session again. But again the parliament recommended toleration. Once again he dismissed them, but this time, instead of leaving, they stayed.
This period was known as the Long Parliament (Nov. 1640- April 1653); it was the beginning of the English Civil War(s) between the Royalists (who sided with James) and the Parliamentarians (who sided with the Puritans). Eventually Charles I was captured by the Parliamentarians and executed for treason. His son Charles II was exiled.
Puritan sympathizer Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) led England through much of this period. It was during this time that Parliament called the Westminster assembly to refine the doctrines of the church in England according to Reformation principles. They produced what is known as the
Westminster Standards (1646).
During the English Reformation Anglicanism tended in a Roman Catholic direction, basing Christian unity on the succession of apostolic office. The Puritans, on the other hand, believed doctrinal purity (i.e. the succession of apostolic teaching) was the basis of Christian unity, which precluded the Anglican theory, since it was in itself, according to the Puritans, a violation of doctrinal purity.
ConclusionWhat is the basis of Christian unity? We have seen that this question has been asked throughout church history. Two answers seem prevalent: (1) succession of an apostolic office or (2) doctrinal purity. Those aligned with the Anglican tradition believe that the succession of an apostolic office is the basis of unity (as does Roman Catholicism), a succession which is, at least in theory, supposed to set and defend the broader limits of doctrine (i.e. latitudinarianism, which is far different from promoting and defending doctrinal purity). But as history demonstrates, this theory is flawed. Those aligned with the Puritan-Reformed tradition believe that doctrinal purity, the passing down and guarding of the inscripturated apostolic teaching as the ultimate authority (i.e.
sola Scriptura), is the basis of unity. They fundamentally believe that latitudinarianism is a violation of the moral law of God; therefore they seek to move beyond simply setting and defending the broader limits of doctrine in order to humbly, consistently, and actively defend and promote doctrinal purity (i.e.
semper reformata, semper reformanda, "always reformed, always reforming") and, with it, true unity.
[All charts from
Charts of Reformation and Enligthenment Church History, John D. Hannah]
