Given the proximity of the July 4 holiday, I recently picked up a new book entitled American Covenant by Yuval Levin. In it, he takes up the sticky issue of how—in a big, diverse country where none of us think alike—we might still not only get along but actually get things done. Early on, he places the notion of “unity” before his readers, tweaking its definition in an interesting way: “Unity,” he writes, “doesn’t mean thinking alike; unity means acting together.”
Unity is indeed an interesting concept. Many consider it an ideal. Politicians speak of it a lot. The word is always energetically deployed in presidential inauguration speeches no matter who’s giving the address. We talk about the importance of unity in our groups, our teams, our neighborhoods, and wider communities, as well. We even talk about it at church. In all these realms, we speak of the importance of getting along, despite our differences, in order to accomplish what must be accomplished.
The main problem though with the notion of unity is that while we earnestly advocate for it—we rarely act as if it's so crucial, we would surrender all our most cherished principles so that it may be realized. We wish instead that those who disagree with us will surrender theirs. And this, Levin suggests, is where we should be grateful for our Constitution, the system of government it bestows upon us, and for James Madison, its primary author.
Madison’s system reflects, as Levin writes, “an exceptionally sophisticated grasp of the nature of political division and diversity.” It favors—sometimes frustratingly—nothing happening at all over the destabilizing pinball effect that would follow if any given faction was able to enact aggressive policy changes with only narrow legislative margins. The design instead promotes compromise and negotiation in the context of a competition of ideas, which is to say if a group wishes to advance a preferred policy, Madison’s framework forces it to persuade its fellow citizens to join in the effort. The system compels us to act in unity even when we don’t think alike. Yes, it can be maddening, but it’s worked—better than all other forms of government—since it was ratified in 1788. Although we’re primarily celebrating the Declaration of Independence on July 4, we ought to shoot off at least a sparkler or two for Madison and the Constitution, as well.
But how about in the context of our faith? How should we think of the idea of unity as Christians? How might a church or denomination deal with controversial secular issues while still promoting unity among its members? How do we nurture unity, when certainly we don’t all think alike? How do we judge, argue about, and advocate for what’s right and what’s wrong on the issues of the day, in the context of following Christ?
Chinese Christian writer, evangelist, and one of the most prolific church-builders of all time, Watchman Nee, wrote that as believers, “Our standard of living can never be right or wrong.” What’s right and wrong, he says, is for others. Not us. Nee posited instead that followers of Christ must live up to a different standard, a higher standard.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also…If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two…“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies…If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?…If you greet only your own people…do not even pagans do that? (Excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount, NIV, Matthew 5).
“The whole question for us,” Nee writes, “is one of cross-bearing. You ask me, is it right for someone to strike my cheek and I reply, ‘Of course not!’” But this is not the question, he says. As Christians, our standard of living is the cross. “The principle of the cross,” he writes, “is our principle of conduct.”
As July 4 comes and goes and the political season continues to heat up, keep two things in mind: First, it is our great good fortune to share this country with one another under the genius of the system of government we have; and second, being right is not our standard. Our standard is rather to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile, all the while loving those with whom we disagree, even those we might consider enemies.
God—Help me work out what the standard of the cross means now and in the months ahead. Amen.
