“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (Part 3)

2. Responding To Doctrinal Diversity

We now turn to examine how the gospel controls our response to doctrinal diversity. We suggest here six ways that we can respond, before concluding with a return to the slogan for our consideration ‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity’. Our goal is to consider how this statement fares as a guide for responding to doctrinal diversity.

Unite Around Truth

Our unity must be grounded in shared belief—the one faith for which we must contend together (Eph 4:2, Jude 3, Phil 1:27-30). A shift from this position may be subtle, because there may appear to be unity (but no longer around the gospel). Historically, we have seen this in a range of gospel organisations.

The Student Christian Movement, once the largest evangelical student movement in the world, had a basis of belief ‘I acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as my only Saviour’. This obscured spiritual disunity and within ten years, divisions arose over whether Jesus’ Lordship involved divinity or not.⁸⁴

Iain Murray’s analysis of evangelicalism in Britain is insightful.⁸⁵ Under a false ecclesiology, Evangelical Anglicans began to see evangelicalism as just one ‘party’ in a broad church, rather than calling others back to the ‘one faith’. Evangelicalism was understood in sociological terms, rather than by the theology that gave rise to it.⁸⁶

The glory of the local church must not be transferred onto an association of churches or unity sought in institutional mergers. Indeed, where the gospel is threatened, unity will be best preserved by preparedness to speak out boldly and at times demonstrate that spiritual unity has been lost by withdrawing fellowship. Sometimes by staying we will only obscure the gospel. The schismatic is not the one who leaves a partnership, but the one who departs from the truth. Holding together an association is not the highest goal, but unity in the truth. We may be actually contributing to spiritual unity by leaving, rather than being silent in the vain hope of maintaining unity. Whatever unity that remains will not be unity in the gospel.

Finally, because we do not equate an association of churches with the one catholic church, we need not feel the necessity to leave an association when false teachers gain preferment. That would place too high a stock in the association. Yet, public acts of false teaching must be met with equally public acts in defence of the gospel. Therefore, for the sake of the public testimony to the gospel, we must respond in the same sphere as the false teaching occurred. Yet, because the New Testament focus is on the local church as an expression of the invisible, we are not automatically compromised by mere membership of an association. By contrast, if our local church leaders deny the gospel, fellowship must be withdrawn if repentance is not forthcoming.

Tolerate An Agreed Degree of Breadth

‘Comprehensiveness’ is a commitment to tolerate a breadth of understanding of the Christian revelation within a particular context. We will argue that it is both desirable and necessary this side of heaven. This is not primarily because we are finite, but because we are sinful. Divisions occur when we insist on distinctives that are outside of the biblical revelation, or demand freedom where God has spoken. Biblical humility is not a desire for infinite breadth, but a willingness to submit ourselves to God’s revelation. This is of course done with a degree of provisionality, acknowledging our own sinfulness and with an eye to the resources God has given us to read it—His Spirit and His people.

There will be no need for ‘comprehensiveness’ in heaven—for there we shall ‘know fully and be fully known’⁸⁷; there we shall reach ‘unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God’.⁸⁸ However, given that we still have room to grow in our unity, we need to define a breadth of understandings that are acceptable in a particular context. We must not see doctrinal diversity as inherently good, but as a necessary protection in a sinful church. Complete unity now would be a false unity—it could only come about by coercion.

Comprehensiveness needs to be carefully defined for it can be either a vice or a virtue. Like the word ‘unity’ it can be defined in a way shaped by the gospel, or hostile to it⁸⁹. The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans because Christ himself hates those practices.⁹⁰ The teaching of the pastorals is that the role of the Christian leader is to exemplify, teach and defend a specific apostolic deposit. Undefined breadth is no virtue at all.

An agreed breadth is appropriate and healthy. If our criterion for gospel partnership was total agreement then no partnership would be possible.

Biblically, Paul’s call for unity around the gospel is addressed to sinful people who are not in complete agreement. Our doctrinal judgements are only ever provisional—Jesus’ final judgement relieves us of the need to respond to every error. This gives theological space for breadth.

Historically, we see the dangers of strong personalities arbitrarily defining orthodoxy in a tight circle around their own beliefs. Publicly agreed limits of breadth, defend both the integrity of the gospel message and the individuals who agree to work within it. Individuals can hold minority views and may not fear removal unless they stray beyond the limits that all in the union have given their consent to.

Of course, an agreed comprehensiveness must not be used to shut down discussion on issues within the bounds of the basis of union. To borrow a phrase, we are called to work together to make a ‘more perfect union’. Hence we must desire a dynamic, not static union—our eschatology demands growth in unity. Part of our problem is that many unions never actually meet together with the Bible open, leaving a legal entity but no dynamic pushing it towards unity. Due process is important in any union, but it does not create agreement, merely manage differences. Whilst agreement is not guaranteed when the Bible is taught, we should meet expectantly when we use the resources God has given us—His Word applied by the Spirit, in the context of His People.

This view of comprehensiveness is intentionally theological not institutional or sociological. We rightly have a degree of inertia in our attachments to institutions and movements, yet our attachment is first to the gospel and the clarity of its proclamation. Our job is not to hold a movement together at any price. If we are to effectively proclaim the gospel, we must be willing to walk away from partnerships that compromise the gospel. Thus the Reformation splits are not to be viewed as failure. In that division, the message of justification by faith was made abundantly clear and sealed by the blood of martyrs. Office bearers must first and foremost be leaders who maintain fidelity to the gospel, not simply committed to holding diverse opinion groups together within their union. The Reformation proves that a split can actually promote real spiritual unity.⁹¹

If our organisational affiliations confuse people about the gospel and demand our primary allegiance then they must be severed. Our absolute commitment is to the universal catholic church, not to a denomination or even a local church. Allegiance to the former will at times mean breaking with the latter.

J I Packer⁹², reflecting on the situation in the Church of England, has highlighted that many of its difficulties come from using the term ‘comprehensiveness’ in totally different frameworks. Whilst he argues for a view of comprehensiveness, he critiques three alternatives, which we may recognise:

Integration championed by F.D. Maurice, attempted to synthesize Evangelical, Tractarian and Broad Church principles in the Church of England. He saw the church as primarily institutional and only secondarily confessional. Packer notes:

If ever we wondered when came the facile idea, often met, that the Church of England is a
liturgical rather than a confessional church, now we know.⁹³

Tension summarises the more recent view, that the Anglican Church has a special role in a dialectical process, which ends in the synthesis of different theologies (particularly Protestant and Catholic). This future synthesis justifies the current disarray. This view has the advantage that at least it recognises that the current forms are incompatible. However, its eschatology is overly optimistic—where does this hope come from? Do we see Paul incorporating the Judaizers’ gospel in Galatians 2?

Relativism is the most recent understanding of comprehensiveness. It has paralleled the theological success of liberalism⁹⁴. Previous views were internally consistent platforms of belief, but liberalism brought a new form united largely by its opposition to the alternatives (hence liberal catholic or liberal evangelical). This view of comprehensiveness is fundamentally antagonistic to the breadth envisaged by the Reformers.

Given this understanding of comprehensiveness, we suggest five areas of application relating to diversity:

A right comprehensiveness defines itself propositionally. If the gospel comes to us in verbal form, we ought to be able to define our beliefs propositionally. A step away from confessional boundaries to liturgical or historical connections is a step away from the gospel. This is a direct repudiation of approaches like that of Peter Carnley:

“Historically speaking, Anglicans appear to have been content to live with mystery and ambiguity, and this has meant that Anglicanism has not involved confessional definitions in its approach to Christianity”⁹⁵

We view this statement as historically false and theologically dangerous.
Establishing the breadth of boundaries of comprehensiveness is partly a pragmatic decision, related to the consensus that could be achieved at the origin. The biggest problem is not a broad definition, but having a centre other than the gospel. As long as the Word of God is central, there will be a dynamic towards unity.
An enforced comprehensiveness inevitably produces a structural unity without a matching spiritual unity. This is a false unity that only harms the gospel. Comprehensiveness only works effectively when it is consensual. If it is not, we do not get agreement ex animo, but a legal splitting of hairs or a playing with the definition of assent⁹⁶. We commend the practice of having multiple platforms that define their own comprehensiveness, such that the temptation to play with definitions is minimised.
Comprehensiveness varies between contexts and we operate simultaneously in a range of contexts. It is entirely appropriate to have the extent of our partnership defined by the extent of our faith agreement. Membership of a denomination may require less agreement than belonging to a staff team at a specific local church. Annual Bible teaching conventions can gather a broader range of people because they are an occasional event.
Comprehensiveness only works effectively if both members and office bearers respect the boundaries created by their common consent⁹⁷. Members contribute by withdrawing from the partnership if their beliefs change. Office bearers need to have enough courage to confront members (or member churches) who publicly deny what they have promised to uphold. On the other hand, withdrawal from the partnership must not be penalised. The goal must be to make it easy for people to uphold the basis of the union ex animo. Having multiple platforms to choose from can only make this easier and would allow people to choose their affiliations based on theology rather than it being the only option available.

To summarise, our view is that comprehensiveness is a useful and necessary concept provided it is carefully defined. Any definition of comprehensiveness must be seen as a minimum, not maximum requirement for belief. On the one hand, it must protect a person holding a minority position from exclusion from the union. On the other, we are called to teach the Bible, not the basis of belief. By joining a particular union we are agreeing to expound the Scriptures within the limits set by the basis of belief, but not limiting ourselves to it.

Listen Carefully

Speaking the truth in love operates in both directions. If God has give us His Word, His Spirit and His people, we must use all three. We must enter into dialogue with others expecting to benefit from God’s provision of the person in front of us. In fact, even error can benefit us: the Church has developed depth in responding to heresy, forcing it to define the truth more clearly.

Listening also expresses a right acknowledgement of our own fallibility in responding to the revelation in the Scriptures. Love dictates that we listen in precisely the way we would like to be heard by others.

Charitable assumption dictates that we treat people generously. Where is room for doubt then we must presume nothing. When we are tempted to attribute motive to a view, we must refrain. In all our dealings, we must not judge people, only the words that they say.

Respond Proportionately

Our response to theological diversity must be proportional to the seriousness of the error. Some describe this as having a ‘graded response set’. This is where our earlier categories and criteria can be put to good use.

On one end, we can choose to stay silent. At the other end, the most extreme response is the withdrawal of fellowship. For most occasions the response will be ‘speaking the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15). Pastoral judgement is called for—Paul obviously knows the situation well enough to decide to confront Peter in Antioch over influences from the Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-21), but to counsel silence over law issues in Romans 14. In all of this, the mode is one of persuasion not coercion because the aim is for the authority of Christ to affect the conscience of the believer, not for us to stand over the believer as judge (Romans 14:4).

Withdrawal of fellowship,⁹⁸ is not to be viewed as a retributive action, for that is God’s domain⁹⁹. It is intended rather, to signify the coming eschatological separation. It warns both the offender and the church that sin is serious and that false teaching destroys the work of God.¹⁰⁰

Yet, these are both the extremes. The general mode of operation is ‘speaking the truth in love’ to which we now turn.

Speak Truth in Love

This is a refusal to let divisions be final; to be optimistic about change because of the direction of history. Words of truth are the God-ordained way that Christ will build his church (Ephesians 4:11-16) and are the direct expression of his rule in this world. Of course, it will be prayerful speech, for we know it is the Spirit of God that makes the externally clear Word of God, internally clear to the hearer. They will also be loving words for we are speaking to someone for whom Christ died.¹⁰¹ Yet failure to speak is not an option—for the church is ‘the pillar and buttress of truth’ (1 Timothy 3:15).

Speaking truth in love may take a range of forms: from the confrontation in Antioch (Galatians 2:11) to the tender fatherly words to a church (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Both are truth in love and we must not allow love to be defined in such a way as to exclude ‘tough love’. Saying ‘Peace, Peace’ when there is no peace is profoundly unloving. Therefore, when using the categories above, we recognise teaching that will undermine the gospel, we must speak out.

We model ourselves on Jesus who weeps over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41) and desires to gather them as chicks (Matthew 23:37-39), yet in the same breath condemns the teachers of Israel as hypocrites, blind guides, fools and snakes. ‘How will you escape being condemned to hell?’ (Matthew 23:33). If we follow his example, we too will follow the path of the cross.¹⁰²

Discern the Context

Understanding context is critical to speaking the truth in love. We will be looking for the best opportunity to build up our brethren.

Whilst maintaining unity in salvation, the Bible does not ignore our obvious diversity. Male and female, older and younger, masters and slaves are all to relate differently because of their context.¹⁰³ Timothy is not to rebuke an older man harshly; church members are to respect their leaders and so on.¹⁰⁴ Awareness of these distinctions is important for faithful communication.

Contexts may also limit what we can discuss fruitfully. If the leadership team of a church cannot come to agreement on an issue, it may be best not to endlessly raise the issue. However, this is a limitation of that specific context. It may be appropriate for some individuals on that team to pursue the issue in another forum.

Evangelicals believe in liberal education because truth could come from any quarter and we can only refute error we have understood in depth. We must therefore create contexts where we are exposed to ideas that are hostile to the gospel. Theological colleges must give opportunity for alternatives to be discussed and non-evangelicals heard in their strongest form. However, there must be an equal recognition of the responsibility to show an evangelical response to challenges.

Some would suggest that churches be the place where we exhibit this kind of breadth. Our belief is that, whilst other contexts have their place, the teaching at the local gathering must reflect the understanding of the gospel held by the leadership. They have a responsibility to ensure that what is taught under their care, represents the truth as they understand it and not as someone else understands it. We might call this a ‘narrow platform’ approach to the local church.

Conclusion: ‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things
Charity’?

We return now to where we began and ask the question: how useful is this slogan to us in assessing and responding to theological diversity?

Read sympathetically, the slogan fits well with the framework above. It fits the evangelical understanding of comprehensiveness—agreement on the central issues, whilst recognising a defined breadth on non-essentials. It expresses the New Testament imperative for love to be expressed to all, and not just amongst those with whom we agree with. In fact the slogan could be read as a good summary of Romans 14.

Yet, as an aid in assessing diversity we have some reservations. None of these substantially modify the statement, but they do pick up on what is not said which would be necessary for a useful model to include.

The slogan is open to a very broad range of understandings. Whilst it expresses a notion that evangelicals would be happy with, it could also be comfortably used in just about any Christian context, indeed in any political context.¹⁰⁵ Is it sufficiently evangelical?

It may be said this is too harsh a criticism—a slogan cannot be expected to say everything. We accept this in part. However, we must at least recognise that the statement depends entirely on our definition of essentials and non-essentials to work; and as we have seen it is in precisely this area that there is significant disagreement. For instance, until we define what has been classified as ‘non essential’ nothing has really been said. Without this, it is a blank cheque, which could well be used to promote doctrinal minimalism.

We have seen that ‘essentials’ is a term that has been understood in a very broad way. The range of definitions being used include (i) essential for salvation (ii) essential elements of a faithful gospel presentation (iii) Credal Christianity (iv) Primary as opposed to secondary truth (v) truths that have consensus acceptance in a particular organisation or community.

Likewise, non-essentials can be understood to be mean:

All truth not included in ‘essentials’ (a binary distinction between essentials and non-essentials)
A small subset of issues defined as adiaphora

Liberty also needs clarification. We are certainly not at ‘liberty’ to ignore large chunks of the Bible on the basis they are ‘non essential’. Liberty must be understood as toleration, or freedom from exclusion.

Clearly, these definitions are broad enough to ensure the statement says very little. What we have observed is that the concepts and categories discussed are only useful in so far as they are placed in a framework arising from the gospel. The same words can be, and have been, used historically in ways that are completely antagonistic to the gospel. Sometimes familiar words are the most dangerous, because we so rarely stop to define them.

We also note a clear connection between our understanding of the clarity of Scripture and problems elsewhere. If we concede that what we have in Scripture is an unclear word from God, there are ripple-effects. We have a lower expectation of evangelical consensus and a smaller circle of issues we claim with confidence. In particular, the categories of adiaphora and secondary issues become considerably bloated and potentially misused. Given the current issues facing Christians, this is not a healthy development.

The Scriptures are both realistic and optimistic. They are realistic about the damage from sin on our unity as Christians. Yet they are optimistic, for unity is already achieved in Christ. He has given us everything we need for the task ahead: his Word, his Spirit and his People.

In response to theological diversity, we have seen that diversity is not an intrinsic good, but a necessary safeguard. We are committed to the view that God has spoken clearly in His Word with a view to being understood. Further, that he has ordained the process of ‘speaking the truth in love’ as the way to bring us to unity in the gospel and this drives us back to the Scriptures. Not all truths are equally central. In recognition of this, we have argued that we must respond proportionately to error as measured against the framework of the gospel and the authority of Scripture, in conversation with Christians throughout the ages.

Bibliography of Sources Cited

Barth, Karl Church Dogmatics, tr. G.W. Bromiley, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed., 1975.

Bolt, P., Thompson, M. and Tong, R. eds. The Faith Once For All Delivered: An Australian Evangelical Response to The Windsor Report. Sydney: The Australian Church Record, 2005.

Bray, Gerald ‘I Believe’ Briefing, 310 (2004): 7-9.

Calvin, John The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, tr. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Carnley, Peter Reflections in Glass. Pymble Sydney: HarperCollins, 2004.

Creighton, Rick One Bad Apple: Towards a theology of fellowship and separation (Fourth Year Project, Moore Theological College 2002, unpublished).

Dickson, John Promoting the Gospel Sydney: Blue Bottle Books, 2005.

Edwards, David L. and Stott, John Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. 2nd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990.

France, R.T and McGrath, A. E. eds Evangelical Anglicans: Their Role and Influence in the Church Today. London: SPCK, 1993.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. 2nd ed. Great Britain: The Free Press, 2002.

Jensen, Peter The Revelation of God Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

Knox, D. Broughton The Everlasting God: A Character Study of God in the Old and New Testament. Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1982.

_____. Selected Works: Volume II Church and Ministry. Edited by Kirsten Birkett. Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. and Schreiner, Thomas R. eds. Women in the church: an analysis and application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005).

Nicole, Roger Standing Forth. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2002.

O’Brien, Peter The letter to the Ephesians. Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999.

O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

_____. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.

Packer, J.I. ‘Why I walked: Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight’, Briefing, 294 (2003): 17-20.

Peterson, David Possessed by God, Leceister, England: Apollos, 1995.

Robinson, D. W. B. ‘Church’. Pages 205-207 in New Bible Dictionary. 2nd ed. Leceister: IVP, 1982.

Thompson, Mark ‘How to have a godly argument’, Briefing 184 (1996):3-8.

Tinker, Melvin, ed.. The Anglican Evangelical Crisis. A Radical Agenda for A Bible Based Church, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1995.

Torrance, T.F. Trinitarian Faith, Edinburgh: Clarke, 1998.

Volf, Miroslav After Our Likeness. The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Wengert, Timothy ‘Adiaphora’ in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vols, ed. H. J. Hillerbrand, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. I, 4-7.

Williams, Garry A Critical Exposition of Hugo Grotius’ doctrine of the atonement in De satisfactione Christi, D.Phil thesis, Faculty of Social Studies, University of Oxford, 1999.

Woodhouse, John Unity that Helps, Unity that Hinders. Sheffield: Reform, 2001.

Wright, N.T. Resurrection of the Son of God, London: SPCK, 2003.

— ‘Other Men Laboured: Fifty Years With The Student Christian Movement In Australia, 1896-1946’ Melbourne: Australian Student Christian Movement, 1946.

Other Works Consulted

Griffith Thomas, W. H. The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to The Thirty Nine Articles. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Theological Seminary, 1996.

Hicks, Peter Evangelicals & Truth: A Creative Proposal for a Postmodern Age. Leicester: Apollos an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press, 1998.

Hooker, Richard Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Piety. 2 Vols., London: Den @ Sons, reprint 1907 [Original 1583-1587].

Horn, Robert M. Student Witness and Christian Truth. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Authority London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1958.

_____. What is an Evangelical? Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. ‘What does it matter?’ Priorities and the adiaphora in Paul’s dealing with opponents in his mission’, in Gospel To The Nations. Edited by Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson. Leceister: Apollos, 2000.

O’Donovan, Oliver On the Thirty Nine Articles: a conversation with Tudor Christianity. Exeter: Paternoster for Latimer House, 1986.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Packer, J.I. A Guide to the 39 Articles Today. (London: Church Book Room Press, 1968)

Verkamp, B.J. ‘The Limits Upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon’. Theological Studies 36 (1975): 52-76.

— The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689: Rewritten in Modern English. 7th ed. Leeds: Carey Publications, 1992.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Footnotes

⁸⁴ Pamphlet ‘Other Men Laboured: Fifty Years With The Student Christian Movement In Australia, 1896-1946’, (Melbourne: Australian Student Christian Movement), 11.

⁸⁵ Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000).

⁸⁶ This is reflected in Evangelical Anglicans: Their Role and Influence in the Church Today (eds. R.T. France & Alistair McGrath, London: SPCK, 1993). It is responded to in The Anglican Evangelical Crisis: A Radical Agenda for A Bible Based Church (ed. Melvin Tinker, Ross-shire Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1995).

⁸⁷ 1 Corinthians 12:12

⁸⁸ Ephesians 4:13

⁸⁹ cf John Woodhouse, Unity that helps, Unity that hinders (Sheffield: Reform, 2001).

⁹⁰ Revelation 2:6

⁹¹ Similarly, the split between the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (IVF) proved to be one of the most beneficial things that has happened in university student work in the last hundred years. They could not have known that at the time.

⁹² J.I. Packer, ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width: Comprehensiveness in the Church of England’ in The Anglican Evangelical Crisis. A Radical Agenda for A Bible Based Church. (Ed. Melvin Tinker, Rossshire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1995). Packer demonstrated the limits of his comprehensiveness when he walked out of the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in 2002 over the introduction of service for blessing same-sex unions—J.I. Packer ‘Why I walked: Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight’, Briefing, 294 (2003), 17-20.

⁹³ J.I. Packer, ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width: Comprehensiveness in the Church of England’, 115.

⁹⁴ I am not arguing that liberalism and relativism can be equated, merely that viewed historically they are parallel developments.

⁹⁵ Carnley, Reflections in Glass, 74.

⁹⁶ Note the broadening of definition of assent in the Church of England, and the parallel breadth in Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass, 75.

⁹⁷ See D. Broughton Knox, Selected Works: Volume II Church and Ministry. Edited by Kirsten Birkett. (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 184.

⁹⁸ 1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 1:5; Titus 3:9-10. We note D.B. Knox’ argument that 1 Corinthians 5 has been commonly mistranslated and really amounts to God casting out the sin through the prayers of the congregation; D. Broughton Knox, Selected Works: Volume II Church and Ministry. Edited by Kirsten Birkett. (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2003), 91-93.

⁹⁹ cf Rick Creighton, One Bad Apple: Towards a theology of fellowship and separation (B.D. Thesis, Moore Theological College 2002, unpublished).

¹⁰⁰ 2 Timothy 2:17, 1 Timothy 1:18-20.

¹⁰¹ Romans 14:9-10

¹⁰² cf Peter Jensen, ‘Speaking the Truth in Love’ (2002 Halifax-Portal Lecture) http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/83/ Accessed 29 October 2005.

¹⁰³ Ephesians 5:21-6:9; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; 5:1-2.

¹⁰⁴ 1 Timothy 5:1, Hebrews 13:17

¹⁰⁵ In fact, it is worth noting that politicians have learnt some of their language from the church—‘The Liberal Party is a broad church’, etc. This is great as long as it is not a two-way exchange. Are denominations using slogans like this just to hold together a range of theologies that see evangelicalism as just one expression of the gospel amongst many?