[1] Can salvation by faith alone provide a basis for Christian unity in churches being fractured by ethical debates? Even with the recent ecumenical agreements with the Orthodox on the filioque, discussions of ecumenism seem moot for denominations that are struggling to maintain internal unity in the face of fractious debates over social issues, especially LGBT+ questions. What is the value of an agreement between the United Methodist Church (UMC) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) when the UMC is shedding congregations to the Global Methodist Church (GMC) and the ELCA is likewise under spirited attack from schismatic Lutheran bodies? It seems unlikely that the ELCA would be able to pursue a parallel ecumenical agreement with the GMC because the GMC would have the same complaint against the ELCA as it had with its own parent denomination—a position on a specific ethical issue that it deems unacceptable.
[2] But is this conflict necessary? As Protestants, we are united by the belief that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, based on Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” If our good works cannot save us, then neither are we saved by a correct understanding of good works—and ethical debates are nothing if not arguments over the correct understanding of good works. If our salvation is not dependent on a correct understanding of good works, how can we justify breaking fellowship with other Christians over their presumably flawed understandings of good works, while ignoring any humility that would concede they might not be the only ones in error?
[3] This is a question that has come up before. Historically, churches with strong commitments to democratic polities have fractured over ethics in times of major societal change. This was notably the case during the 19th century movement towards the U.S. abolition of slavery. But the issue is much older than that. It goes back to the apostle Paul’s discussions of the relationship between Jews and Greeks in the early church. Before Christ, he maintained, the Jews had held an advantage over the Greeks in their superior understanding of God’s Law. Yet that advantage could not save them. They were condemned by the very Law they celebrated—and saved by the same grace extended to those Greeks they perceived as ethically challenged. When the apostle declared elsewhere that in Christ there was neither Jew nor Greek, it could easily be argued that the difference eliminated by Christ was ethical or cultural, not ethnic or racial. The Greeks operated with different ethical and cultural systems than the Jews—but all were united in Christ. In Paul’s testimony, then, a difference in understanding of the Law (or virtue, in Greek terms) did not constitute grounds for division within the church. It is noteworthy that the apostle’s response to this was not to resolve the ethical questions into a new Christian Law, but to challenge all Christians to live like people saved by grace through faith, manifesting the effects of the Holy Spirit.
[4] In today’s fractious debates, the final clause of Ephesians 2:9, “so that no one may boast,” is often overlooked—even though grammatically it could be understood as the point of the entire sentence. Culturally, our boasting today tends to be expressed negatively. For example, it would sound presumptuous of me to trumpet my intelligence, but it is somehow more acceptable to say people who hold contrary opinions are stupid. I would not presume to hold the sole authoritative understanding of Scripture, but I might well declare that all who disagree with my understanding of Scripture fail to respect its authority. The difference between the two is immaterial, however; such attacks are still a form of boasting.
[5] Indeed, the names we use to describe our opponents are often less descriptive of our opponents than they are an inverse of how we see ourselves. For example, climate advocates routinely characterize their opponents as presentist, anthropocentric, and science deniers, which is coded language for short-sighted, selfish, and willfully ignorant. This is by no means a fair characterization of the climate movement’s most prominent critics, such as Bjørn Lomborg or Steven Koonin, or a response to the specific arguments they have made. It is, rather, an inverse of how climate advocates see themselves—as far-sighted, magnanimous, and scientifically well-informed. What is presented as criticism of their opponents’ position would be more honestly described as a form of inverse boasting. The function of this type of straw man argument, then, is to boastfully claim the moral high ground rather than respond to any specific opposing argument. This is not to say that there are not substantive debates to be had based on the issues themselves. Rather it is to say that such attacks do not address them. Instead, they indicate, in an insulting and awkward way, how we boastfully see ourselves.
[6] This extends to LGBT+ debates roiling our churches. Neither side has exclusive access to compassion or the authority of Scripture. If we were to remove boasting from the conversation, we might rediscover what we have in common–and could then address what we, together informed by Scripture and the Christian tradition, deem best for caring for our neighbors.
[7] Such boasting keeps us from talking and working together. Sadly, it often also keeps us from worshipping together and communing together. By contrast, salvation by grace alone through faith alone excludes boasting—and its divisiveness. It is noteworthy that Paul’s proclamation of salvation by grace through faith in Ephesians 2:8-9 is followed in Ephesians 2:11-22 with a determined argument for the unity of Gentile and Jewish Christians in Christ. In 2:14-15, Paul identified the law, with its commandments and ordinances, as the hostility between them—divisive ethical debates are nothing new—but then declared that Christ has abolished the law and created one new humanity in place of two. We are united in the gift of God that is grace, independent of specific understandings of the law.
[8] Ethical questions are not unimportant. How best to love our neighbor is an important issue worth debating—for the sake of our neighbor. But when we break fellowship with those who disagree with us on such things, treating them with contempt, or when we make our denominations so inhospitable that they leave, we deny something critical about salvation. It is a gift, not something earned by our good works—or our correct understanding of good works. Both our works and our wisdom about good works are flawed and require the Lord’s grace. Fortunately, through faith, that grace is gifted to us.
[9] The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed has once again been celebrated as an ecumenical sign of the unity of the church, but it is worth noting that the subject of the creed is who God is and what God has done. When it comes to human responsibility for good works, it falls remarkably silent. In the creed, I believe, I worship, I confess, and I look forward—but not one word about ethical requirements, much less the ethical debates roiling our churches. Perhaps our elders were on to something there, finding unity and faith in what God has done.