Late last week I posted an article on the Gospel Coalition blog entitled  Why Redundant Ministries Can Harm Our Mission. In the article I express my concerns about nearly identical Christian ministries competing when they could be partnering. As a response to the article, many people, including my father, asked what partnership would look like between theologically distinct denominations.

First, let me readily admit that in some situations partnership between denominations is simply not possible. For instance, if one denomination chooses to host a pastor’s conference specifically for female pastors, it is quite unlikely that a denomination that does not ordain women will be a partner in that conference. But it is important to realize that there are not as many serious theologically divisive distinctives as one might think. Partnership is more likely than not if denominations will take the time.

Second, what generally tends to keep denominations from partnering effectively is not theological differences but differences in ministry philosophy. I once participated in a street evangelism program with a friend who had the opposite few of God’s sovereignty in salvation than I. Yet what create trouble for us in working together was not the different theology but her different ministry philosophy. I preferred to share the gospel with as many people as possible on a given outing, while she preferred to spend an entire night trying to convince the same person to believe. While this philosophical difference may have been affected by our theologies, Arminians and Calvinists can work together effectively in evangelism if they agree upon their ministry approach.

Which means that in order for those from different theological perspectives to ascertain whether or not their theological disagreements render partnership unlikely or to see if they are on the same page philosophically, they have to talk to each other! This, more than anything else, is the main reason that denominations do not partner effectively. We assume the differences are insurmountable, but we never make any attempts to overcome the obstacles, however large or small we imagine them to be. Most churches already have a theological consensus of agreement in the Nicene Creed and Apostle Creed. Most churches are to be considered in the realm of orthodoxy. Why then do we allow a church’s differing opinion on a particular theology to keep us from even making an attempt at partnership?

Denominations have great value and I am certainly ‘pro-denominations.’ I would even go so far as to say one could make a Biblical argument for them. However, denominations are not to be isolated and insular any more than churches should. Instead, we should strive to cooperate with other ministries by taking that first step of sitting down and talking about ministry philosophy and theology. In most cases, everyone involved will realize that the obstacles are more imagined than real.

Moral Consensus is a great goal for the moral fabric of a nation, except for one slight problem: moral consensus tends to shift over time. When the founding fathers established this great nation, Africans were only for enslaving. When the Greeks established a republic, pederasty was acceptable. As it stands now, moral consensus would include the acceptance of homosexual marriage, and most recently, attempts to eliminate “under God” from the pledge of allegiance.

The reason for this shift is that the foundation for consensus shifts. When the framers of the constitution created their document, natural law was the primary foundation. For the Greeks, the foundation was logic and reason. For a while, Judeo-Christian values were the foundation for consensus. In America today, the Bible, Natural Law and Reason have been replaced with versions of liberty and equality and attempts to create no distinctions whatsoever between gender, race, religion, and so on. Liberty and equality, while great for politics, leave the door open too far for a moral consensus that is anything short of libertine living.

The reality is that the foundation of moral consensus will shift on its own over time toward more ‘free’ living unless people work to keep it anchored to a particular foundation. The goal of this blog has been to renew awareness of moral consensus, which assumes restricting one’s own moral behavior for the greater good rather than the current atmosphere of personal ‘free’ living. On the other hand, the goal of this blog has also been to reverse the slide of moral consensus into a sanctioned free-for-all. The reason for this is simple. If no one is paying attention to the foundation of moral consensus, the foundation will shift without anyone noticing. Like the proverbial frog in the kettle, consensus will shift slowly until the frog suddenly realizes he is cooked. Sadly, this type of shifting and moral decline can be seen in America’s history over the centuries. As we debate and resist the shift of moral consensus in the wrong direction, we actually hope that the decline will reverse.

So how does one shift moral consensus back in the other direction? Debate is a start but it will be ineffective to bring about moral change. Politics will certainly fail as has been demonstrated time and time again over the last century. The answer lies in the Hope of the Gospel. As the Gospel impacts the lives of individuals and as they begin living out the Hope that they have, their lives are transformed and people begin to wonder why. Simply put: Gospel living is better. But this assumes that those who know the Gospel will live it out culturally, socially, publicly, and so on. Far too many Gospel-believing individuals have accepted this culture’s moral foundation of personal liberty, allowing them to think “the gospel is good for me.” This individualistic way of thinking is quite American, but it is also part of the problem. The Gospel is not simply good for me, it’s good for everyone. As individuals have shifted away from the perspective that the Gospel is good for everyone, moral consensus has shifted as well. The way to reverse the trend of moral shift is to reverse our individualistic approach to the Gospel and begin to think of the Gospel as the solution to the world’s need. People tend to establish their foundation for moral consensus on what works, and if those who believe the Gospel will only live their faith publicly, the greater society will see that Biblically moral works and works better.

For moral consensus to be a reality in this country there must be a foundation. I’ve argued that this foundation could perhaps be the constitution or similar documents, even as I’ve admitted that this would mean that homosexual and heterosexuals would be viewed equally before the Law. But how does this fit with obvious Biblical morality which declares homosexuality sinful?

There are two points that must be made before that question can be answered. One is that moral consensus in America is a political idea, not a Biblical one. There is no consensus in Biblical morality; God declares what is moral and honoring to Him, therefore it is. Second, Biblical morality for the Christian influences political moral consensus, not vice versa. Thus, one solution which has been offered on this blog is to eliminate financial benefits for both types of marriages rather than having benefits only for one or for both. But these two points often distract from the real issue at stake and the real answer to the above question: there is no political answer to true transformation.

Let’s assume for just a moment that the proverbial Presbyterian pastor and the homosexual man in the gas station late one night do indeed reach a moral consensus. Does this mean that true moral transformation has taken place? Absolutely not. Even if the pastor agrees that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be treated equally before the Law, it does not change the fact that he believes homosexuality to be wrong. Even if the homosexual agrees that the political promotion of homosexuality would be bad for the country, he will most likely remain homosexual, even if privately. Moral consensus would create, by definition, at atmosphere where both perspectives meet in a middle group, but this is also the limitation of moral consensus. In the depth of his soul, the Presbyterian pastor does not simply want equality but the transformation of the homosexual. The topic of moral consensus is a fun academic exercise, and would even create a wonderful atmosphere for American society, but the goal of transformation of individuals would not cease simply because consensus had been reached. Rather, moral consensus would create an atmosphere where the goal of transformation of individuals could take place even easier!

The danger of political discussion among Christians is that it is often seen as the goal, which it is not, transformation is. Politics is often seen as the means, which it is not, the gospel is. Thus, while moral consensus would be great, it cannot be the final objective. For true cultural and individual transformation to take place, true gospel impact must take place, creating a change that goes much deeper than moral consensus.

Blaise Pascal was famous for many reasons, but one of them was his religious wager. If Christianity is true, those who reject Jesus Christ will go to Hell for their sins. If Christianity is false, nothing happens. Are you willing to take the risk?

I would propose a second wager as it relates to Moral Consensus. Would you be willing to give up your personal liberty for the sake of the greater good? For instance, if it was demonstrated that abortion had no affect on the greater good of the country, would you be willing to legalize the practice? If homosexual marriage were proven to have no affect on the greater good of the country, would you allow it to be legal? The answer that most Christians would give is “certainly not.” However, those same Christians expect those in favor of abortion, homosexual marriage, and wealth transfer programs to suddenly acquiesce if it is proved that such ideologies hurt the country. But why do Christians expect such if they are unwilling to take the same wager? This is certainly inconsistent and does not help the goal of consensus.

Many Christians seem to have a deep rooted fear that perhaps Christianity is ineffective. It is has been argued elsewhere, both in this blog and other sources, that Christianity simply works. Christianity presents the best way to be a family and to run an ethical society. This is not an argument for an American theocracy but the simple fact that the Bible presents the best way to live in God’s creation. Obviously, that “best way” involves Jesus Christ, but Scripture also promises indirect blessings upon the nations and the surrounding culture when Christianity is allowed to thrive (simply read the writings of Tim Keller on this subject). So why are Christians fearful that this will be proven otherwise? Why are Christians afraid that Christianity will not be the ‘best way?’ Good question, but this fear certainly explains quite a bit.

It explains why Christians are hesitant to talk about their faith. It explains why Christians are afraid to interact with culture or with their neighbors. It explains why Christians do not engage the topic of ethics but hide in their own enclaves, emerging only to vote in large elections. I considered this even further this week as I drove around town putting flyers for the church on mailboxes. The postman and a local police officer both looked at me funny as I drove on the wrong side of the road to stick the flyers in the newspaper box, but I had a thought as I drove along. If I knew my neighbor was dying of a disease but I had the cure, would it not be unethical of me to withhold that cure? Even Peter Singer, an avowed Atheist, stated “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” While he was talking about social action, his statement certainly applies to our willingness to share our Christianity. Christianity holds the ‘secret’ to correct living (just ask Duck Dynasty below) and yet Christians often withhold this information, perhaps out of fear that this is not the case. I realized that here I was nervous about what a postman might say to me, yet also believing that I was placing potentially live saving flyers in my neighbors mail. My faith in the effectiveness of the Gospel motivated me to continue.

The same is true in order for Moral Consensus to be achieved. It would appear that we need to be willing to meet those of the opposite view point halfway, to put up or shut up, to take the step of faith and lay it all on the table, taking the wager that the Biblical viewpoint is better. If we ask others to lay it on the line and take the wager of giving up their viewpoint for the greater good, we should be willing to do the same, especially when we know and believe that we will be proved right in the end (cf. Daniel 1). We should challenge those of opposite perspectives to take the wager, a wager which in faith we should take as well.

When my secretary told me that I needed to watch a show entitled “Duck Dynasty” I began to think that her Dr Pepper consumption had finally gone to her head. Why would anyone watch a show about duck hunters called Duck Dynasty? For the answer, check out the Gospel Coalition article on this incredible family. Basically, a Christian family who invented a million dollar duck call are taking the world by storm. And the best part? When television is filled with dysfunctional families and the ensuing family drama, the Robertson family demonstrates the power of the Gospel to create loving, caring families, even though they are now incredibly wealthy, a wealth that has not changed them one bit. According to Phil, the family patriarch, atheists have even contacted the family to discover their secret. No secret, says Phil, just the power of Jesus Christ.