The Paradox of Christian Unity: From Ancient Concord to Modern Discord

Christians have always been a fractious bunch. Within twenty-five years of Jesus’ death, St. Paul was warning Christians at Corinth against taking one another to court, and the apostle’s Corinthian experience would likely make him unsurprised at today’s South Carolinians, where Episcopalians are suing one another over some $500 million in church properties. Within the church, the result has been tension between an ecumenical ideal, on the one hand, and doctrinal “purity” and denominationalism on the other.

The Ancient Concept of Concord

To address these divisions, one must explore the idea central to unity among believers: concord. It is a concept as ancient as it is elusive, yet it has much to offer twenty-first-century believers. The story can be said to start around 400 BCE in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War, a time when Athens emphasized homonoia, or “like-mindedness,” as a spur to recovering from a generation’s worth of civil war. Concord became a key concept of Greco-Roman civilization and a feature of classical philosophy from Plato to Cicero, with Aristotle’s student, Alexander the Great, championing a global homonoia throughout his vast empire. As Edward Gibbon noted, concordia was the idea that allowed the Roman Empire to run.

Early Christians, particularly the generation after Paul, were adamant in their insistence on unity as the basis of survival. They were persecuted and witnessed strife in the Christian communities firsthand, making concord a matter of life and death. By the end of the first century, it became an ideal in both the political “assembly” and the “church.”

The Patterns of Discord

Beneath countless reasons for division lies a familiar, fundamental pattern where conflicting priorities create discord—a discord easily amplified by the use of weaponized adjectives. Some prioritize theological precision, fearing that any dilution of doctrine triggers an effort to stave off heterodoxy. Others, meanwhile, see little point in doctrinal exactitude when there are so many social needs to meet and political wrongs to right. This dynamic is summarized in the following comparison of perspectives within the faith:

Perspective Type	Primary Focus	Common Descriptive Labels
Doctrinal Purity	Theological precision and staving off heterodoxy	“Orthodox,” “Gospel-centered”
Ecumenical Ideal	Social needs and political wrongs	“Progressive,” “Ecumenical”

The Challenges Facing the Ecumenical Movement

Despite the sustained lobbying of both establishments, the attempt to unite the Church of England with the Methodists has ended in failure. The breakdown of the British merger plan, coupled with the abortive attempt to unite the Southern Presbyterians with the Reformed Church in America, must necessarily raise questions about what is going wrong with the ecumenical movement. Six years ago, the English theologian Dr. James Packer pointed out that to expect that reunion would invigorate churches not noted for soundness of doctrine was “to expect two consumptives to get better simply through getting married.”

If we are not one in the truth, we are not at one in Christ. Therefore, all who seek for union in Christ must examine themselves whether they are in the truth, for there can be no recognition of truth without a rejection of error. Ultimately, even the “purest” group must maintain some sort of internal agreement in order to survive—and this means tolerating disagreement through the act of “agreeing to disagree.”