Unity In Diversity

Unity In Diversity is an old doctrine used by pluralist movements all over the world. It allows for one body, loosely joined, while practicing multiple doctrines and in separated groups. Many groups like Bahai and Hindu and Church of England and even Catholicism use the doctrine of diversity to try to create a unified world movement, which allows local differences. 

It allows for separated groups while maintaining joint authority. In false Christianity it meant Jew and Gentile could maintain separate congregations and worship while falling under the umbrella as Christian. Another use would be Wesleyan groups like Wesleyan, Methodist, Assembly of God, Nazarene worshipping separate in denominations while exercising joint power politically.

Ephesians 2:15-18 is used to say the cross allows you to worship in grace as you see fit, so that denominations and separation is ok. The verse actually frees Jews from the law so Jew and Gentile can worship together. They use the verse backwards. It wasn't written to separate into groups, but to join together to form one group. Romans 15:1-4 concerning the same subject says, that we may glorify God together.

Differences, when applied to the church, tend to cloud what is important and what is unimportant, what is necessary and what is unnecessary. They talk about differences like color or gender or culture, but the scriptures have already stipulated those differences do not change salvation. We are all saved the same way. Since the scriptures stipulate salvation is the same no matter the nationality or gender or office then we really don't need diversity that separates us. We can be one.

Galatians 3:26

For ye are all the children of God by the faith in Christ Jesus. 

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 

Since diversity is stipulated up front we do not need separation into diverse groups. All diverse groups fall under the same method of salvation.

Unity in Diversity may teach we all have different roads, different methods to reach God, different paths to salvation. Yet, that isn't a diversity God spoke of. Differing administrations or offices, yes, as in I Corinthians 12:5. But all, in all offices, were saved the same way. In Acts 8 the Samaritans were saved before receiving offices or administrations by laying of hands. Acts 8:14 it says the Samaritans received the word, the same word every other Christian received. In Acts 19 the Ephesians were saved before laying of hands. So that diversity of gifts or offices did not mean diversity in salvation. God did not point to a different word for different cultures. There wasn't a different savior.

John 6:44-45 Everyone who has learned of the Father comes to Jesus

Though many may teach Jesus isn't the only path, Jesus here says all learning from the Father come to him. The Father hasn't given a different path.

Acts 4:12  neither is there salvation in any other, he says, there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved

Diversity in a Christian sense doesn't include such topics as salvation, the faith, baptism, it doesn't involve every theological area. Unity in Diversity allows diversity in areas not meant by Christ. In most cases it involves keeping the law or not as Christian worship or doctrine.  It is a vehicle to implement Jewish worship like instruments.

In unity in diversity there is normally a pet requirement followed by a list of freedoms. These are often not biblical but personal. Here are some pet doctrines. Those who practice infant baptism split off into diversity, allowing differences as long as you allowed infant baptism. Some allowed union as long as you allow the three modes of baptism. Even some Church of Christ groups have moved in that direction, accepting differences as long as you practice believer's immersion. People want to find one pet topic they must have, while giving freedom in the rest.

Karl Ketcherside wanted Unity in diversity in the Church concerning baptism and its purpose. He did not require baptism be for the remission of sins. He wanted Baptist and Church of Christ to accept one another based on believer's baptism without regard to purpose. Ketcherside was baptized by baptists without knowing why, so when meeting COC they asked him to rebaptize, he said in his memoir that he did so to please the Church of Christ, not to please God. He went from being a baptist preacher to preaching in the COC without really believing it made a difference. He spent his career working from within to overturn COC beliefs on many subjects.

Unity in Diversity caused the separation between Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and the COC. Divisions must come, but woe unto him by whom they come. - Jesus

Ketcherside was from Chilicothe, Mo.

Wikipedia describes it this way.

Unity in diversity is a phrase that signifies the unity among people with diverse cultural, religious beliefs, social status and other demographic differences123. It is used as an expression of harmony and peace among dissimilar individuals or groups23. It is employed to ensure that tolerance is uniform and to respect the differences among people3. The phrase has its origins since ancient times and is used by various political and social groups 

Uniform tolerance is a better phrase to describe it. That implies we should tolerate disagreement equally, even when the subject may be soul threatening and the disagreement weightier. Uniform tolerance is actually anti-bible, which calls for us to speak up concerning salvation. It requires us to accept Christ's lordship. Jesus himself taught there are weightier matters, so not all disagreements are equal.

If Unity in diversity isn't really biblical, then why do some large protestant bodies such as the Wesleyan and Calvinist sects practice unity in diversity? Did it come from the Church of England? Is it much older going back before Christ? Is it just a common strategy to eventually get what one wants? It allows the open practice of changes someone wants adopted without questioning openly.

The answer is, no, it isn't biblical. From a Christian perspective it is based upon the false idea of a Jewish body and a Gentile body with different practices of worship. It was employed by Judaisers who wanted the Jewish system, a call for diversity allowed them freedom to grow their desires.

From a scripture argument it is pulled from a mis-representation of Acts 2  and Acts 21:20 and Ephesians 2:9-20. The Christians in Jerusalem were mostly Jewish so the Church was represented as Judaistic and following the law. There were some prostelytes to Judaism, but most were Jewish. The idea was that the  Jewish church practiced the law of Moses while the gentiles were free from the law. This created a precedent for deviation doctrinally and separation by denomination. 

They forget the Jews were free from the law from the day Christ died. It could no longer condemn them, so they had no commandment from God forcing them to continue in it. It became a matter of choice, but a choice not meant to divide from the Gentiles. Remember, Paul corrected Peter for separating from Gentiles.

Unity in Diversity teachers almost always begin their indoctrination with Acts 2, teaching the early Church used Jewish practices. So things like a human high priest (Pope) or musical instruments (Temple worship) or a physical temple with alter (the eucharist) were brought forth into Christianity. These were all Jewish temple practices. After argueing them to be acceptable they took the next step and argued them to be Christian law. Yet notice we dont have a physical temple, or separated priests, or an altar for sacrifices except in an altered form. Our temple is the church, our altar the Cross. So the argument Jewish Christians practiced Judaism in Christianity was false. Christians simply didn't have a physical temple in Jerusalem.

Acts 21:20 says they were zealous of the law. The phrase doesn't mean in practice. It is genitive in case, meaning their faith came forth from the law. It contained the information that led them to Christ. So why attack what was leading souls to Jesus with a broad condemnation. Peter and James would warn Paul not to diminish the laws purpose while leading souls to justification apart from the law.

 Just as Jesus was zealous for the temple when he kicked money changers out, he was aware of the Temple's value in bringing souls to himself. It was in the temple many learned about the messiah. It was a house of prayer for all nations. Jewish Christians were zealous of the law as Christ was zealous for the temple. 

Jesus who had a zeal for the temple knew it would be destroyed as it fulfilled its purpose. Jesus did not permanently add the temple to the church, but knew its usefulness in transferring Jewish thought to himself. The law led people to Christ.

The misunderstanding can be corrected if we realize both Jew and gentile were free from the law concerning justification, both practiced the commands and ordinances of Christian doctrine as given by Christ and the Apostles, see Acts 2:40-47. From the beginning the Jewish church followed the 'Apostles doctrine' as did the gentiles, especially more standardized after Acts 15 clarified justification. The apostles doctrine wasn't the sanhedrin's doctrine. They were not the same. 

Following the law of Moses, when practiced by Christians, was not for justification. The Jews were free to keep the Law of Moses but not for justification. Concerning justification, the Jew and Gentile were under the same Christian doctrine. Concerning justification there was no Unity in Diversity. Concerning Christian ordinances there was no difference between Jew and Gentile.

Acts 13:39

And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses...

The law could not justify either group. By Christ all believers can be justified, by Moses none are justified. Moses and the law brought condemnation.

You see concerning justification both Jew and Gentile, "all that believe", are justified through the Gospel, apart from the Law of Moses. See Romans 4:13 Paul spoke Acts 13:39 to a Jewish audience in a Gentile city, so we have clear evidence for Jew and Gentile. Many Jews did keep aspects of the law of Moses for other reasons like entering the temple area, a legal requirement in Judaism. They never kept the law for justification. Christians never kept the complete law.

Unity in Diversity violates the great commission by being silent about some aspects of the Gospel when it would violate another's beliefs. The great commission was to teach the complete Gospel with all its principles. Things like baptism for the remission of sins can be simply watered down into baptism for any purpose, so you don't step on other's beliefs about any subject. We are commanded to proclaim the Gospel in its fulness, not a different Gospel as described in Galations 1:8. Yes your churches may grow watering down the Gospel, but pews will be full of partially believing christians, plus it leaves their souls in jeopardy and Christianity weaker.

Jews were zealous for the law according to the statement in Acts 21:20, just as Christians are to be zealous for good works Titus 2:14, without believing good works save without Christ. We can be zealous without believing they justify.

Acts 21:20 took place after the judgment in Acts 15, so zealous does not mean being a law or being justified, the entire Jerusalem church understood this.

Christians could keep Jewish law when entering the Temple area as in Acts 21, or keeping holidays or food laws Romans 14, but they would never take temple practices and add them to the Church, that would have been highly offensive to Jew and Church. These were private expressions, not public law. They would never borrow Levitical instruments such as manna plates or oil lamps or temple instruments and practice them at the Lord's worship. That could be cause for death under Jewish law. They would never judge others with those laws Colossians 2:9-17. If they practiced Judaism it was done lawfully, so 

1. they wouldn't bring practices out of the temple that were designed for the temple. Copying the law isn't actually keeping the law.

2. They would never bring sacrifices to the temple if it degraded the purpose of Christ's sacrifice. Christians did not need animal sacrifices after being forgiven in Christ.

So they practiced parts of the law to appease the Jews, but did not keep all of the law.

So not all of Jewish law was kept by Christians. As a complete system it was not.

Unity In Diversity is a false theory that allowed Judaism to flow into the Church. The Jews could practice Judaism for many reasons besides salvation, while not being allowed to bring Judaism into Christian worship. It was a one way street, they could practice personally without making it a Christian precedent. Christianity was separate in structure. 

baptism

Lord's Supper

Church structure

Prayer

Singing

These were all different from Judaism in some details. So to claim Christians practiced Judaism is not true. In Acts 2 it says they followed the Apostles doctrine, not the Sanhedrin's doctrine. They followed Judaism when it helped spread Christianity by appealing to conscience without creating law. 

Christians followed Christ as High Priest, not the Levitical High Priest. To say so is blaspheme really. To say Christians kept the law you would place the Jewish High Priest over Christ after the resurrection.

Many teach that almost everything we practice was brought from Jewish law into the church, because the church was Jewish, but this is a bad analogy. You see, things like prayer were practiced before Judaism, so not necessarily brought from Judaism. Animal sacrifices were before Judaism. Murder was a crime before Judaism. Marriage law was practiced before Judaism. Judaism recorded them in history books like Genesis and Exodus before the law was ratified. Jesus quoted marriage principles in Mark10 referencing the beginning, not the law. It preceded the law.

The Apostles doctrine in Acts 2 wasn't based on Jewish law.

In Acts 2 the Church practiced human norms affirmed by Christ that were taught before Judaism, practiced in most every culture including Judaism.  Things like prayer were taught by Christ in the fashion he desired, not according to Judaism. Jesus taught not to pray or give alms like the Jewish leaders. The assumption the early church practiced Judaism was simply false. The idea James the Lord's brother practiced the Law of Moses for justification is put to rest in Acts 15.

Acts 15:17

that the residue of men might seek after the Lord...

So with unanimous consent they wrote to the Gentiles that justification was through seeking the Lord. Then in Acts 15:24 James testifies they gave no such commandment endorsing Judaism. Many Christians kept Jewish law for conscience sake, but not by commandment for justification.

So the idea Jew and Gentile had different worship commands is false. Both had liberties of keeping local laws and of conscience. These laws could be different in different countries.

I Peter 2:13

"submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake"

This says every ordinance, not just Jewish ordinances.

This was not for justification, but to aid in the spread of the Gospel. Some kept the law from ignorance, the church tried to edify each weak member, but weak members were not the precedent and our end doctrine. The Christian could use such freedom to fit into any society.  Justification was the same for all. No king or governor had power to change the ideas of Christian justification. Justification could not submit to the king or governor.

Christians did keep area and local laws, but not for moral justification. Jews had freedom to keep Gentile laws in foreign lands as Gentiles did in Jewish land. But keeping secular law did not change christian worship and justification. Nor did we have the freedom to change things like baptism into a pluralist practice that allowed multiple modes or purposes. We cant alter christian ordinance into human purpose, it is the purpose God gave to it. Its original purpose is to be retained.

I Cor.11:1-2

Now I praise you, brethren , that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

It is my estimation that unity in diversity is simply a catholic justification for the priesthood and musical instruments. They want a precedent to style their church after Judaism. It offers a precedent for their practice, but it is a false precedent.

Also, freedom means freedom from the law, not freedom to do as we please. Freedom from the law gave the Jew a clean conscience to worship according to New Testament commands, ordinances, traditions without feeling guilt, or feeling God would punish them. They were free to step away from the legal condemnation of the Law of Moses.

Colossians 2:13-16 Let no one judge you ...

In baptism they had died to the law to be married to Christ, through this death they were freed.

Romans 7:1-7  free to marry another

Both Col 2:13-16 and Romans 7 follow passages on baptism and our freedom.