Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

Christian (John 14:27; 16:33) and is simply too precious to squander (Rom.
12:18).
It is not surprising that at this point one of the commentators brings the
relationship of peace (unity) and truth (holiness) into the picture (Manton,
317). Liberals invariably will favor unity and peace over truth and holiness.
Unity and peace must prevail at all cost. Conservative thinking frequently, if
not mostly, reverses this order. Truth and holiness “trump” unity and peace.
Truth is regarded as the rock, on which peace may and, if needs be, must
shatter.
Frankly, there is no doubt that Scripture gives equal billing to truth and
unity, which is an additional sample of complementarity. The emphasis upon
peace and unity is incessant (Rom. 12:18; Eph. 4:3-6; 2 Thess. 3:16). So is
the emphasis upon truth and holiness (Ps. 51:6; John 8:31-32). In several instances
both poles are mentioned back to back (John 17:17-19; 20-23; Heb.
12:14a, 14b). Believers, therefore, must be gripped by both. But what if a tension
develops between the two? Which one should give? After all, such tension
can be anticipated, be it with deep sorrow, if a variety of scriptural examples
to that effect means anything. One can hold on to the illusion that
there is peace where none exists (Jer. 6:14). In fact, there can be no peace
where there is ungodliness (Is. 48:22; 57:21; Jer. 7:1ff). One can also suppress
the truth and turn it into a lie (Rom. 1:18, 25), with ungodliness inevitably
following in its wake (Rom. 1:24ff). In these instances the lack of truth
and holiness clearly shatters peace and unity. In other words, under such circumstances
these two poles can no longer co-exist. This naturally leads to the
question at which precise point peace and unity breaks down for lack of truth
and godliness. This has been a burning issue throughout Church history.
With the awesome emphasis upon peace and unity, it seems to me that
neither one should be disturbed, unless an issue arises that either affects a
truth necessary for salvation, such as the deity of Christ (2 John 9-11), or
concerns a type of ungodliness punishable by damnation, such as the catalog
of sins mentioned in Revelation (Rev. 21:8). At the same time, with the
equally awesome emphasis upon truth and holiness peace and unity must be
disturbed, (only) where and when eternal salvation hangs in the balance,
whether due to damnable doctrine or practice. In short, where salvation is not
at stake, Paul’s guideline of forbearance must prevail (Phil. 3:14-16). But
where salvation is threatened, Paul’s anathema must ring out (Gal. 1:6-9). In
other words, “agreement” in everything concerning doctrine and conduct,
however cherished in Scripture with a view to godliness (Eph. 4:12ff), is
clearly not an absolute prerequisite for peace and unity. At the same time
“perversion” in anything regarding faith and practice, since this is abhorred
638