Unity, But on What Grounds?

In John 17, Jesus prayed for his disciples, “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” (John 17:21).

Jesus desires unity. The question is, should it be given carte blanche?

Jesus, in this very prayer, already answered that question. He prayed, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11).

That phrase—that they may be one—looks like this in Greek: ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.

The very first word, the small one that I’ve bolded, provides what is called a Greek “hina clause.” A hina clause is always subordinate to what precedes it. It simply expresses the purpose of the former clause.

Jesus had just prayed, “Holy Father, keep them in your name.” And what would be the result of his disciples being kept in the Father’s name? A unity like Jesus had with the Father. Literally, this text reads, “keep them in your name, SO THAT they might be one just as we.”

Now—notice something vitally important…

Jesus didn’t say, “Let them be one, so that they may be in your name, Father.” That would be getting the cart before the horse. Jesus said just the opposite—“Keep them in your name, so that they might be one.”

Did you catch the order? In Jesus’ own words, unity does not precede holiness. Unity is not the basis of holiness. Holiness (i.e., being kept in the Father’s name) results in unity.

But the fact is that many in mainstream evangelical Christianity are getting the cart before the horse. They’ve esteemed unity above holiness. They’ve forgotten that unity is subordinate to holiness and is literally only possible by way of holiness.

So let me speak to some common ways we’ve forced unity, and afterwards, I’ll give some positive comments on the path forward.

Three Kinds of False Unity

Because Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one, many have pursued unity without context and with few (if any) guardrails. The very concept of unity has been loosed to its own place of untethered chaos. Here are three examples of what I’m talking about.

1. The Nominal Approach. This is when the term, unity, is treated as a magic wand to be waved across a broad set of theological traditions that contradict each other and stand on disparate foundations and assumptions. The nominal approach to unity suggests that simply saying “we’re unified” fulfills the intentions of Jesus’ prayer. Many pulpits bully their congregants who’ve drawn lines on abortion, sexual issues, feminism, and so on. They scold and shout, “You’re not being unified! Haven’t you read Jesus’ prayer in John 17!”

   Nominal unity ignores schisms and spiritual fault lines and it may perpetuate illusions of unity for a good while. But inevitably, when persecutions and social pressures show up, foundational disagreements are revealed, and after the earthquake everyone is wondering, what on earth happened? Seriously consider covid and the chaos we’ve witnessed since 2020. Those profound problems didn’t come from nowhere. They were there all along, and covid happened to reveal them. This is why nominal unity is a patent misnomer.

2. The Minimal Approach. This approach to unity exerts an incredible amount of energy in the mitigation of offense. If a subject or sermon text might chafe anybody, it has to be avoided. The minimal approach to unity was responsible for the seeker sensitive movement of the 90s, and it has failed Christians colossally.

   When pulpits fail to address the issues of the day, people seek answers outside of their churches. For example, because many pulpits failed to speak plainly about abortion, church goers have asked their questions elsewhere. This is why it’s not uncommon to speak to a young Christian woman who thinks that abortion is a “nuanced” subject. It is why so many Christians see it as a merely political issue, and God forbid that we speak to anything political.

   The minimal approach to unity effectively silenced faithful preaching. It necessarily eliminated the vast majority of Scripture, and it filled our pulpits with a cascade of prosperity(esque) theologies. This approach flatly ignores the Biblical mandate to “preach the whole counsel of God.”

   The minimal approach has left a people completely unprepared and without guidance on practical Christian living. Why have we been so unsuccessful in raising our own children in the Lord? Why are divorce rates amongst Christians comparable to those outside the church? Why did we witness many Christians vying for indefinite lockdowns, mandated vaccinations, CRT, and anything else the MSM happened to be pedaling that day? The answers are all found somewhere beneath the facade of unity by minimalism.

3. The Political Approach. Of course I don’t mean secular politics. I’m talking about the political assumption of majority rule. Many churches have sought unity on that basis. But do you remember the twelve spies in Canaan? Ten of the twelve brought back a faithless report. Only two of those men trusted God and his promises.

   If the principle of majority rule had been applied there, Canaan would not have been conquered. Isn’t it obvious? Majority rule is never a good test of rightness. In fact, it’s often indicative of unrighteousness! Jesus said something about the broad way, I think…

A Way Forward

So, what do we do? First of all, a huge part of being unified would happen naturally if we just outright rejected those three false approaches. But let me provide a positive answer, too.

Gather up your brothers and sisters, and together seek the face of God. In humility, seek the face of God. In humility, go to His Word and ask, what does the Father will? Crucify hubris, embrace the world’s rejection, and do not fear the people.

Jesus asked that his disciples be kept in the Father’s name so that they might be one. Unity is a natural fruit of being in the Father’s name. It isn’t something that’s sought for its own sake. It emerges from those who’ve sought the Father and who have been found in him. It exists nowhere else.

So what does it mean to be in the Father’s name? Throughout Jesus’ prayer in John 17, he mentioned the Words of God. He spoke of Scripture. He prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

The basis of unity is God’s own Word. It isn’t tradition (be it from Rome or England or whatever). The basis of unity is the reformational principle of sola scriptura. This means, neither the culture nor the ego nor tradition gets an authoritative spot at the table. When we come to the Word, we set aside both ourselves and our shared cultural assumptions. What if we prayed about these things? What if we actually said, “Father, help us eliminate whatever stands in contest with your Word,” and what if we actually meant it?

Unity is only found in the Father.

This doesn’t solve every division problem, obviously. Sometimes interpretational strategies get in our way. Human limitations of reason get in the way, too. There may always be varying eschatological positions and practical disagreements, too. God have mercy and grace when we fail to understand.

I think, though, that if church leaders would humble themselves before the throne of God, crucifying their love of man’s praise, crucifying fear of the crowds, assuming the presence of false presuppositions, and sincerely asking, “Whatever you will, Father,” it would cut out a considerable part of the current division.

A Final Word

Let me finish with one vital comment.

In order to be unified, we’re going to have to be fine letting some of our own people go. AW Tozer famously said, “You win them to what you win them with,” meaning that many people who were falsely converted to a counterfeit Christianity will not tolerate the real deal. They might (and probably will) get up and walk out. So what?

Did Jesus ever, in all of his ministry, grovel for somebody’s affections? What did he do when people rejected him? He walked on. And he told his disciples to shake the dust from their feet. We have to be okay with that.

The only reason we are running into this problem now is that many of our predecessors did not allow for the division to happen up front. Unlike Jesus, they did not win disciples by full disclosure of self-denial and picking up one’s daily cross. They won them with a message that meticulously avoided the stuff that would turn most people away. The tragedy is that we’ve discounted the heart of Jesus’ message of self-denial. “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Jesus offers true life—and so must we. But there’s no getting around the great costs associated with it.

Obviously we want for everybody to be saved, but the harsh reality is that not everybody will be saved. And pretending that people are saved by never making them aware of the actual cost of discipleship is worse for everybody. It is damnable for leaders. It is treacherous for the church. It is deceptive to church goers.

And do you know what? That approach is spiritually starving the sincere disciples who are earnestly looking for a place to find pasture. I preach for a rather large congregation, and I cannot tell you the numbers of people who’ve relayed to me how hungry they are for God’s entire counsel. They want to be challenged. They want to be sharpened. When I preach a word that openly confronts the dark culture or steps on the toes of congregants, many give a hardy thanks. Do we have a mind for those people?

Seek the face of God in prayer. Search the Scriptures. Die to yourself. Be sanctified in truth. Disciple others to do the same. That’s where we are going to find unity.