Division in the body of Christ is a scandal. Most all agree with that. We must never be satisfied or content with it, as we work and pray for unity. But evangelicals have always held something as more important than Christian unity—faithfulness to apostolic doctrines and moral teachings.
Unfortunately, most talk we hear about unity has been unity-at-any-price, which ultimately means unity at the cost of biblical truth. E.J. Carnell voiced concern about this many years ago, noting the disturbing openness of the ecumenical movement at the time. It would readily welcome those who were open antagonists to major doctrines such as the resurrection, which led him to charge, “Whether Christ conquered death is apparently not important. The important thing is that we all get together under one roof.”
In a recent issue of Touchstone journal, Professor Robert George of Princeton University wrote that there is something even worse than the scandal of division in the Church. It is the scandal of the “affectation of unity between those who do and those who do not affirm the core doctrines of Christian faith—particularly its most fundamental moral teachings.”
What is an “affectation of unity?” An affectation is a “pretending, a pretense, an artificial behavior meant to impress others.” So an affectation of unity is a pretending to be united, a pretense of unity, or a claim to unity that is really artificial, made simply for the sake of others watching. So, the scandal greater than division in the church, says George, is a false unity between “those who do and those who do not affirm the core doctrines of Christian faith.”
Why is this affectation of unity so scandalous? Because, writes George, “It tends to damage and weaken the faith of those who are exposed to it. It sends a message to them that the core doctrines and moral teachings of Christianity need not be taken too seriously.” It implies to those watching that one can be a “good Christian” while at the same time “disbelieving the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and bodily Resurrection of Jesus…” When it comes to such serious matters, “we encounter divisions that must be sustained. There is no core of common faith on which to build,” he writes.
As I read Professor George’s discussion, I was reminded of Harold Paul Sloan, a prominent Methodist pastor in the New Jersey Conference, who led a grassroots effort in the 1920s. Sloan founded the Methodist League for Faith and Life, a movement whose purpose was to “meet this Modernist current and drive which is threatening Methodism.” This was the era when theological liberalism was devastating the American church.
At the 1928 General Conference, Sloan delivered a petition with 10,000 signatures from 522 Methodist churches in 41 states! He charged Methodist seminaries, pulpits, and literature with serious disloyalty to Methodist doctrinal standards. It was a major expression from across the denomination. Delegates, however, refused to give heed to his concerns.
There is more about Sloan’s effort. I found it in retired Bishop William B. Lewis’s unpublished doctoral thesis on Sloan some time ago. In 1926, Bishop Adna W. Leonard became a friend of Sloan. Leonard, in fact, was positive about and in agreement with Sloan’s Methodist League. Soon, Bishop Leonard met with Sloan, another bishop, and others at Wannamaker’s in Philadelphia to discuss plans to help advance the cause of the Methodist League. The very next month, Bishop Leonard visited Sloan in his Haddonfield home and helped him lay plans for League strategy. Throughout the rest of the year, Bishop Leonard was constant in his advice and support of Sloan and the League.
By January, 1927, Bishop Leonard was prepared to write an article to launch the newly-named publication of the League, The Essentialist. Just weeks before the deadline, Sloan got the devastating news. Bishop Leonard said in a letter to Sloan, “In view of all the matters involved, I feel under the necessity of saying that it will not be possible for me to identify myself with The League for Faith and Life as one of its members.” In a letter to the New York Christian Advocate, Leonard denied any association with the League.
Sloan was crushed but kept the matter in close confidence. The Methodist Board of Bishops continued to present a united front in its relationship to the Modernist controversy within the church, even though many bishops were distressed by the church’s theological unfaithfulness. When faced with the choice between unity and truth, the Methodist Board of Bishops wrongly chose unity.
Harold Paul Sloan, however, having spoken intimately and often with Leonard and other bishops about Methodism’s theological defections, knew well that the bishops were presenting to the church “an affectation of unity.”
Robert George is right. The affectation of unity is the greater scandal.