Can the gospel still unite the church at a time when ideological and theological factions are intensifying? I have no doubt it can, but it doesn’t have to.

Let me explain what I mean by examining three texts found in the Torah: the Shema Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4–5), the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21), and the creation account (Genesis 1–3).

Shema Israel—Hear oh Israel!

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5).

The Shema is a key component of Moses’ farewell speech in which he offers final words of exhortation and encouragement as the people prepare to enter the Promised Land. It is a rallying cry intended to nurture the kind of unity that will be essential for the survival of the nation as it enters a new stage of its history.

A central focus

Despite the apparent simplicity of the Shema, it would be a mistake to believe that the foundation for Israelite unity was self-evident. The Shema assumed the adoption of the revolutionary idea that there was only one God, and that this God was Yahweh (Deuteronomy 5:7).

This new concept would prove to be confusing and deeply incomprehensible to people who lived in a world populated by multiple deities each responsible for various aspects of life. Ethical monotheism was a daunting and counterintuitive idea around which to unite.

But the God of Israel was no idol, the product of human imagination. No one could slap a label on Yahweh. To impose meaning on Yahweh would be idolatry. To welcome Yahweh as he defined himself was at the heart of true worship.

Two texts were particularly significant in terms of defining the heart of the Shema: the Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5) and the creation account (Genesis 1–3). The importance of these texts also resided in that they represented the kind of theological input that would be essential for Israel to survive in Canaan.

The Ten Commandments

Liberating the Hebrews from Egypt was a relatively easy task. Maintaining the freedom they had been granted would prove to be infinitely more difficult. The Ten Commandments were designed to give the Israelites the tools they needed to maintain this freedom. The extent to which the people would remain free would depend on their willingness to obey these injunctions.

The creation account

The creation account (Genesis 1–3)* was foundational in providing the materials needed to construct a life-affirming and life-giving worldview. The most basic elements of this worldview pertained to who God was, human identity, and the nature of the physical universe.

One of the most important concepts the Israelites needed to resist Baalism was the belief that God had created the universe. This was not only to counteract Canaanite polytheism but to build a bulwark against nature worship.

The concepts found in the creation account were also critical in terms of providing the conceptual tools needed to resist the ideology they would encounter in Canaan.

In this respect, one of the most important concepts the Israelites needed to resist Baalism was the belief that God had created the universe. This most basic theological belief was not only to counteract Canaanite polytheism but to build a bulwark against nature worship.

In addition, the Shema called on the Israelites to give their entire allegiance to God only. Loyalty to God and unreserved commitment to God’s revelation were inseparable.

What does this look like in real time?

One might ask what “unreserved commitment” might mean. While total and unconditional commitment by all the people might be highly desirable, in this fallen world, it’s not going to happen. The critical level of engagement needed to succeed would depend on the context the Israelites found themselves in.

When Moses first liberated the people from Egypt, they were to enter the Promised Land soon thereafter. But because the Israelites had not reached the minimal commitment required to do so, they were barred from entering the land. It was only under Joshua, forty years later, that this benchmark was reached.

The historical and prophetic books later indicate that if Israel’s survival was not contingent on a unanimous commitment on the part of the people, when it came to the ruling class (kings, priests, prophets), expectations were much higher. As the leaders failed regularly to meet this threshold, the nation’s cohesiveness crumbled.

The abandonment of Yahweh and the Law would lead to the adoption of false beliefs that would result in systemic and comprehensive ethical breakdowns. The longer this situation prevailed, the more destructive it became, and the more costly it was to correct (see Isaiah 6:11–13).

To survive, the people of Israel had to commit themselves to God and to God’s law. The more hostile the environment, the greater and more pervasive Israel’s commitment would need to be.

Lessons for the church

The extent to which the local church will thrive will, in great part, be contingent on the leadership’s unwavering commitment to Christ, Scripture, and Christian orthodoxy (to borrow an expression from well-known writer and pastor Tim Keller). The greater the commitment, the better the odds that the church will flourish even when facing a hostile environment.

Where the rubber hits the proverbial road is that there is a precise doctrinal content to which the church needs to commit itself. Here is the hard reality that many Christians have difficulties accepting: the more “progressive” a church becomes or, conversely, the less committed to orthodox Christianity it is, the faster it will decline (“How to Shrink Your Church in One East Step,” by Alexander Griswold, published in The Federalist, August 21, 2014).

If this is true, it may in fact mean that for churches to survive and grow, they will need to subordinate their desire for unity to rigorous theological integrity.

A doctrinal centre

In keeping with the analogy of the Shema, what could we propose as a central doctrinal statement?

We observed that the Shema could not be isolated from such texts as the Ten Commandments and the creation account. In ancient Israel, unity had to be based on a certain understanding of who God is as articulated in these texts. How the Israelites would live out these theological elements would of course depend on the specific challenges they faced.

My hunch is that we are facing a similar situation. While no one can argue with what constitutes the non-negotiable centre of the Christian faith, namely, that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, was condemned under Pontius Pilate, died for humanity’s sins, and rose again from the dead, such a statement may not be completely adequate in terms of examining and understanding the broader implications of the gospel with respect to the most influential issues every generation faces.

To address these issues, the preacher must eventually go beyond exposition of the text and reach into the prophetic. While expository preaching always represents the best starting point, and while that may be the only viable option in a highly polarized church environment, we instinctively know that sooner or later, it may be necessary to move beyond exposition to the contextualization of Scripture, i.e., the prophetic.

It has become painfully obvious to me that the time has come for churches to confidently proclaim the intrinsic value and dignity of every human being and denounce every movement, ideology, and public policy that challenges this most fundamental truth.

Prophetic preaching that is deeply aligned with Scripture will be relevant and life-changing. Preaching that merely echoes the dominant worldview will become irrelevant faster than it takes for a dog to pounce on a sausage. For those concerned about church unity, I would also add that the latter will, in time, prove to be highly corrosive and deeply divisive.

An inescapable agenda

Even though there are issues that may not be, strictly speaking, in the bull’s eye of the gospel, they are so intrinsically linked to its implications that they cannot simply be ignored even as we seek to articulate a solid foundation for Christian unity.

I believe, for instance, that at the very core of the issues, the gospel must address the rapid erosion of the big idea—that is, the notion of the intrinsic dignity of the individual made in the image of God. If I am right, this would mean that in the same way the Ten Commandments and the creation account helped define the Shema, these same texts could vitally inform our own understanding and proclamation of what we understand as the heart of the gospel.

I don’t mean to be excessively controversial, but here are some of the important issues I contend the church will need to address in the foreseeable future. Some of these issues may surprise some readers, but I insert them here because they are proving to be organically related to the loss of the notion of being made in the image of God.

The sanctity of human life

It has become painfully obvious to me that the time has come for churches to confidently proclaim the intrinsic value and dignity of every human being and denounce every movement, ideology, and public policy that challenges this most fundamental truth. This must encompass the abject immorality of abortion and government policies intended to make assisted suicide more broadly accessible.

Climate change

There are two impulses that emerge when a society is facing a crisis, real or apparent. The first impulse views human beings and the power of the three-pound brain as key to the solution. The second regards human beings as the cause of the problem and their elimination as the solution.

In this respect, it is increasingly evident that the old environmentalist movement has shifted into what many call radical environmentalism, which is fundamentally an anti-human and, if push comes to shove, an anti-science movement. If there is climate science, it is becoming increasingly evident that we are now dealing with a climate change ideology that is more akin to religion than empirical science. The church has the responsibility to challenge the latter.

The options before us are becoming increasingly polarized. We can consciously or inadvertently identify with an elite class that views human beings as parasites and liabilities, or we can side with the poor and the working class and oppose policies that view global poverty and population control as the solutions to a perceived climate emergency.

Human freedom and liberty

At a time when powerful forces are colluding to erase the notion of the intrinsic value and dignity of men and women, free will, freedom, liberty, and humanity’s astounding capacity to find life-affirming solutions to the problems it faces, we need pastors and churches who will push back against these forces of chaos and proclaim these truths.

Critical theory

Christian leaders should do everything in their power to critique, resist, and oppose critical theory in all its forms. The church must challenge any ideology that assesses individuals based on group identity rather than on their character, a principle that echoes the doctrine of the image of God.

At a time when so many are fixated on race, we would do well to remember Martin Luther King Jr once said: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”

Conclusion

Can the gospel unite the church today? Absolutely. It is, in fact, the only thing that can unite us, and that is because Jesus Christ is at the heart of the gospel. Since Jesus is at the centre of the very core of Reality, he must, by default and necessity, be the one and only point of unity for all of us.

But there are conditions. Christian unity orbits around two things: An attitude of loyalty towards Jesus Christ and a deep commitment to a set of core beliefs.

The greater the threat to the church, the more focused, rigorous, and robust our commitment to God and to his revelation will need to be. The burden of pointing to how the church will express its commitment to God and his revelation lies with the leaders of the church.

The precise expression of our commitment to Jesus Christ and to Christian orthodoxy will be, in great part, determined by the degree of stress and instability prevailing in the broader environment. The greater the threat to the church, the more focused, rigorous, and robust our commitment to God and to his revelation will need to be. The burden of pointing to how the church will express its commitment to God and his revelation lies with the leaders of the church.

Because of the times we live in and the rapid and radical erosion of the notion of the image of God in our culture, church leaders and theologians need to have an expanded view of the gospel that will translate into a sharp critique of the culture and a dynamic alternative to the cultural hegemony. To a culture that is embracing death, the love of Christ compels us to offer a vision of life.

“Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ ” (John 4:13–14).

*Editor’s Note: The EMC Statement of Faith lists Genesis 1–2 as a scripture reference for Article 3, “The Creation” and lists Genesis 3 under Article 5, “The Fall of the Human Race.” In this case, Dr. Gilbert uses the reference of Genesis 1–3 as “the creation account” both “for the sake of simplicity” and to correlate with other origin stories that serve to “explain the human condition (birth of the gods, humans, the universe, evil, pain, etc.)” He adds, “The account of the fall would also be an important piece in terms of shedding light on the Shema Israel, as it … explains why loving God is not a given and must be at the very centre of all of life.”