Three Perspectives on Unity

When people speak of unity (Jn. 17), we need to be cautious to avoid the kind of naive alliances that look good on a resume but practically amount to subtle compromises. Further, we need to be cautious about avoiding alliances altogether that practically amount to isolation and unnecessary divisions.

We need a layered understanding of unity. Unity will look different because there are perspectives on unity. While there can be cohesion among the forms of unity, they must first stand on their own.

I argue for three layers:

Biblicical layer (BL): Theological

Historical layer (HL): Political

Experiential layer (EL): Leisure

The Biblical layer takes precedence over other kinds of unity. Theological harmony is the glue of true unity. And when I argue for theological harmony, I am simultaneously arguing for a harmony that produces a functioning praxeology.

The biblical layer is distinctly oriented towards textual unity, which shapes the liturgical and confessional commitments. This unity shares local loyalties that make conversations predictable and desirable due to precommitments. For instance, the commitment to Christian education rooted in Deuteronomic principles exemplifies this biblical unity and practice.

The historical layer is based on shared political commitments. They are externalized to the primary concerns of the Church of Word and Sacraments. They do overlap since theological layers produce shared political views, but the historical layer is independent of a narrow textual agreement to function. For instance, postmillennialists can work with premillennialists. There can be a shared historical commitment to conservative politics that brought political unity between Douglas Wilson and John MacArthur.

Finally, the experiential layer is much more familial. They are generally bound by blood/kin ties, and they are grounded in mutual commitments on special holidays, birthdays, etc. But they do not carry the weight of the other two forms of unity, and there is plenty of room for disagreements. They are sealed in good food and a shared vocabulary on everyday things, but they do not necessarily share the depth of a shared grammar on theology and history.

Ideally, all three of these worlds can align as they do in covenantal homes, forming powerful forces theologically, historically, and experientially. Or, some variation of these unities may find mutual aid and labor alongside each other. Nevertheless, they ought to be seen as separate perspectives on unity.