Sin
Based Unity
Looking bad, due to their inability to defend their
positions with scripture, errorists will often attempt to change the subject
from someone being right
to everyone being wrong. The
advocates of the Grace-Unity movement employed this tactic. Rather than focusing their attention on the
princely principles of New Testament unity (Jn. 17:20-21; 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil.
3:16), these brethren focused their attention on the principle of sin.
Rather than appealing to the New Testament pattern and platform in order to
attain and maintain unity (Heb. 8:5; Eph. 4:1-7), these brethren appealed to
the prevalence and practice of sin.
Their mantra was shouted long and loud - "we're all sinners anyway,
so how can we exclude others from our fellowship?" Thus, they were united in sin and error,
rather than in truth and righteousness.
This same spirit of error is seen in the present Unity-in-Diversity
movement. Promoters of this concept do
not spend their time examining God’s word that they may achieve the honorable
goal of “approving things that are excellent; that they may be sincere and
without offense till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10). Rather, they search the scriptures looking
for stories and examples that they may easily construe as excusing unscrupulous
and sinful behavior. They may not spend
much time studying passages that outline what we must believe, teach, and
practice, religiously. They may not
give much thought to doctrine, morals and ethics. They may not talk much about the plan of
salvation, or the work, worship, and organization of the local
church. But they are very familiar
with passages of scripture that appear to teach that one may violate God’s
moral and religious patterns with impunity.
Of course, there are no real loophole
passages, but some passages may be made to appear that way. For this reason, some people love the story
of David and the shewbread (1 Sam. 21:6).
They see David as sinning, and further, they see Jesus, in Matthew 12:4,
endorsing his sin. They especially like
the Lord’s words that David did that “which was not lawful for him to do.” They mistakenly conclude that Jesus casually
dismissed a flagrant violation of God’s law.
Thus, they have David sinning against God, and God’s own Son defending
that sin! This position is more than
just untenable; it is entirely blasphemous.
One mistake is made in concluding that David’s actions were sinful. Then a worse mistake is made when one
represents Jesus as ignoring that alleged sinful behavior. This point is worthy of particular
consideration. If David sinned by eating the shewbread, and Jesus cited
David’s actions in defense of His own actions, then one would have to conclude
that Jesus also sinned! Do you see what
I mean about this being a blasphemous position! In their zeal to indict David as a sinner,
the sin-based unity crowd finds itself indicting God Himself!
Had they read just two verses earlier in Matthew 12,
they would have understood why Jesus used the wording He did. The Pharisees had just accused Him and His
disciples of “doing that which is not
lawful” when they picked corn on the Sabbath day. Jesus explained that Sabbath laws were for the purpose of encouraging
worship, not for discouraging it!
Eating corn on the way to the synagogue did not violate any Sabbath
laws. Jesus did not cite and commend
David as an example of law breaking!
Such would be ludicrous for the pure and holy Christ to do. He cited the example of David as an Old
Testament example of mercy and expediency.
Matthew 12:4 does not accomplish what some of our
brethren desire. Jesus simply turned
the Pharisees’ argument against them.
They had failed to consider the consequences of their argument. That is, had their reasoning been correct,
the argument that they had constructed against Jesus would have also indicted
and condemned their hero David! Most
certainly, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day” (Matt.
12:8). He demonstrated such on this
occasion.
Joshua 2 tells the story of how Rahab assisted the
Jewish spies by first hiding them, then later, sending them out another
way. Joshua records that in order to
protect these men she lied to the king of Jericho. Unity in diversity advocates like this story because it seems to
emphasize the big picture, rather than any particular point of
conduct. They argue that Rahab sinned,
but that this sin was dwarfed by the larger picture of her love for God
and her concern for her fellow man.
“After all,” they argue, “nowhere does the Bible say that God condemned
her for her actions!” To this I would
point out that Rahab was not a covenant child of God. She was a sinner, and as such, she was in need of God’s mercy and
forgiveness. Specifically, she was a prostitute.
Will it be argued that since God did not specifically condemn her for her
prostitution that we should “look at the big picture” and fellowship all
prostitutes today? Is it possible that
the liberal argument proves too much?
Have they looked at Rahab’s example the wrong way?
There is, of course, another way of looking at
Rahab’s actions, and it is much safer.
Rather than viewing her actions from the skewed perspective of those who
are looking for loopholes in God’s standards, let us view her actions from the
viewpoint of inspiration.
Hebrews 11:31 cites Rahab as an Old Testament
example of faith. We are told that she welcomed
the spies that came to her. She was
commended because she was convinced of the truth of the miracles that God had
worked for Israel. She had heard that
God had “dried the waters of the Red Sea,” and she accepted this as evidence of
God’s existence and power. She acted in
firm faith that the true God would give the land of Canaan to the Israelites,
and that all opposition made to them would be vain. Rahab is cited, not because of her lie, but because of her faith! And, not just any faith! James also commended this woman, but his
commendation focuses upon the action of her faith (Jas. 2:25). She had
the kind of faith that many of today do not have – an active,
obedient faith.
Let us not be fooled by liberal arguments that would
exalt Rahab’s misdeeds above her good deeds. The Bible simply does not address every aspect
of Rahab’s life, and this silence does not necessarily constitute approval of any
of her particular actions. Let us
respect and imitate her for the reasons given by the Holy Ghost, not the
reasons given by those who would take comfort and refuge in her sin.
After Saul’s removal from kingship,
God sent Samuel to the house of Jesse to anoint one of his sons as king (1 Sam.
16). Of course, given Saul’s rage over
his dismissal, Samuel was concerned about how Saul would react if he knew that
Samuel was anointing a new king over Israel.
For this reason God told Samuel to take a heifer and announce that he
had come to Bethlehem to sacrifice.
Samuel did as God directed. Upon
his arrival in Bethlehem he announced his plans to sacrifice the heifer in
worship to God, and he invited Jesse’s family to the sacrifice (1 Sam. 16:2,5).
Sin-based unity advocates like this passage because
they think it looses us from rigid, divine standards. They think it proves that God is not concerned so much with what
we do, but with what our attitude is while we are doing it. In this view they do not differ much from
the advocates situational ethics.
This last group would use Samuel’s story to argue that, “the end
justifies the means,” (which concept is refuted by Paul in Romans 3:8). Whereas, unity in diversity advocates
would use this story to emphasize the attitude above the actions. As you can see, the two positions aren’t far
apart. One group justifies a practice
by appealing to the outcome of the action, while the other group
justifies the practice by the practitioner’s attitude. Neither group is concerned with whether or
not the practice is authorized in and of itself!
As for God’s plan for Samuel, I am very comfortable
with what the scripture says. I am not
comfortable making more of it than the Holy Ghost intended. God told Samuel to anoint a new king at
Bethlehem, and he did. God also told
Samuel to sacrifice a calf at Bethlehem, and he did. What I learn is that Samuel did everything just as God
commanded. Why don’t we hear more
people emphasizing this aspect of the passage? Why do so many look to the passage to justify doctrinal
diversity, ethical sloppiness, and moral freedom?
When Abraham came into Gerar, he said of Sarah, his wife, “she is my sister ” (Gen. 20:2). Isaac later did the same thing (Gen. 26:7). Many people have appealed to this passage to justify the concept of unity in diversity. They are quick to point out that Abraham was the “father of the faithful,” and that he deliberately lied about his relationship with Sarah. Their conclusion is that, “everyone sins and we have no business excluding others because of their sins!”
Given the additional information in Genesis 20, we
must conclude that though Sarah was Abraham’s half sister, yet he intended to
deceive Abimelech for purposes of his own safety. Abraham also falsely concluded that there would be “no fear of
God” in Gerar, and that because of this they would kill him for his wife (Gen.
20:11). These were matters that Abraham
was wrong in, but we are not safe to conclude that God approved of his
actions. We may conclude that there
were certain instances of ignorant behavior that God did not specifically
address or openly condemn (Acts 17:30), but we may not conclude that God
approved of lying. It is certainly
dangerous for people of today to appeal to Abraham’s actions at Gerar to defend
the concept of doctrinal and moral diversity.
Other examples are misused in an attempt to loosen
the yoke of God’s law, but the above passages are quite commonly abused. It is one thing for men to appeal to their
traditions and creeds to broaden the platform of religious unity, but I
consider it shameful and repulsive for them to attempt to use God’s holy word
for this purpose. God’s word is designed
to lead us out of, and away from, sin (Jn. 15:3; 17:17; 1 Jn.
2:1; Ps. 119:11). It is intolerable
that some have so adulterated and twisted the word of God that they are
actually appealing to it to justify the acceptance of sin and false doctrine. Honest Christians must stand together and fight
against the plague of unity in diversity.
Tim
Haile