Unity vs Conformity

[graceandpeace]

Is unity possible without some level of conformity (agreement on doctrine, how we worship, or whichever)? What does unity look like? How much conformity is needed in the church setting?

 

[seeking.IAM]

My signature line pretty much says it all.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is unity possible without some level of conformity (agreement on doctrine, how we worship, or whichever)? What does unity look like? How much conformity is needed in the church setting?

I actually had seeking.IAM's signature in mind when I opened the poll. "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" (St. Augustine)

I think agreement on central doctrines is essential. Of course the first problem is who defines central doctrines? The Nicene Creed seems a good starting point.

If we insist on unity on EVERY SINGLE point of doctrine, I think we would all belong to a church of one! Ok that's an exaggeration, but there are so many positions of doctrine, nuances of those, slight variations ... If we could truly KNOW the truth, and all agree on it, that would be ideal. It seems the Lord Himself is going to have to do a work to make that happen, though, if it were to ever be.

I see great divisions caused by the ways in which we worship. Sometimes I think there can be much to be gained by participating in what we are not familiar with, if we are prepared for it.

But in a church setting, there will almost necessarily be a certain style. Otherwise it seems there would be chaos.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think St. Paul's teaching about there being orderliness in worship indicates that worship isn't to be a free-for-all. There's supposed to be an order of worship. That was one of the chief problems facing the Corinthian church, it was a disorganized, unorderly mess of people doing their own thing leading not only to a total disgrace of the Lord's Supper, but amounted to people arguing over who the coolest apostle was, "I'm of Paul", "I'm of Peter", "I'm of Apollos". Leading to factionalism, disunity, and flagrant sin (such as the dude who married his own mom, something Paul is quick to point out that is abhorrent even among the most hedonistic of pagans).

So, at the very least, at the parish level, what happens on Sunday should have structure. Good structure. Because there is no unity without our acting in unison, as one, as the Body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

I didn't vote, by the way, because I can't see what I would vote for.

I believe a shared faith, to a point, is essential. I believe we should have some freedom in worship, but you cannot have freedom for all in a single church service. There must be order. However, I am not willing to say "this one way is how everyone should always do it and there can be no other" because I don't agree with that. But there must be order, and within a particular service, there must be a guiding "style". I just think it's ok for the style to vary between churches.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think agreement on central doctrines is essential. Of course the first problem is who defines central doctrines? The Nicene Creed seems a good starting point.

I suppose this is what I still find myself struggling with in my faith journey. WHY is the Nicene creed essential, but some other matters or doctrines - like the use of icons from the 7th council of the undivided church - considered by some to be non-essential? (I have never used icons BTW, though I am interested in including them in private devotions in the future) I've always agreed that the Nicene creed was essential, but I just find myself wondering if the many divisions of preferences & doctrine as well in churches is really an expression of unity.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I suppose this is what I still find myself struggling with in my faith journey. WHY is the Nicene creed essential, but some other matters or doctrines - like the use of icons from the 7th council of the undivided church - considered by some to be non-essential? (I have never used icons BTW, though I am interested in including them in private devotions in the future) I've always agreed that the Nicene creed was essential, but I just find myself wondering if the many divisions of preferences & doctrine as well in churches is really an expression of unity.

Well, you are expressing something that has been very much on my heart of late.

I think, honestly, I'm going to step on a LOT of toes if I keep going with this - but I think there is value in much of what the church has in her different branches.

The thing is, we are divided into parts that at all costs do not trust what is associated with the "other". Catholics vs Protestants, Pentecostals vs cessationists, liturgical vs non-liturgical. Probably more should be added.

We are taught to mistrust the "other" and often see much or even almost all of what they teach as heresy. Some might even use stronger words. I think this is a very sad state of affairs. And everyone thinks they are right, or else they wouldn't be where they are.

The thing is, I have been in different churches and once I really explore what I find, I find valuable things that help my spiritual growth. To the extent that each position rejects what is good in the other, I think they limit themselves.

There are certain things I do not believe in certain churches, and cannot embrace that. However, the more I learn, the more I see that that list is not as long as I used to think it should be. Part of my old list was based on misunderstandings.

Things like the nature of God, the virgin birth, Christ's death on the cross for our salvation, His resurrection - these are the kinds of things I cannot compromise. That actually does cut out some denominations, but not many.

It makes me sad. I feel God has led me to different kinds of churches. I was just telling someone I feel as though I am going around to different churches, gathering precious jewels.

If He is returning for a perfected Bride, without spot or wrinkle, perhaps He will correct the errors and heal the schisms before He returns. I would very much like to see what that looks like, if it turns out to be the case.

 

[Willie T]

I think a lot has to do with rules set down that don't necessarily say what you should do, but restrict what you CAN do.

I will never forget, as long as I live, when a visitor at our CoC said aloud, "Praise God!" Someone turned around to him, and said, "We don't do that here!"

I doubt the member really understood exactly what he just admitted..... but I sure suddenly realized it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

My answer really depends on what we mean by "worship." If it means that we all worship in the same language, then no, that's not necessarily. If it means we can worship privately or worship publicly and both are equally valid as the center for Christian life, then yes, I think we need to agree that the public Sunday worship of the church is necessary. If we mean different orders of liturgy that are culturally conditioned but all express the same care for embodying the highest artistic and literary merits of one's culture, then I think having those different worship styles are fine. But if by worship styles we mean so-called no-liturgical worship, then no, I think that breaks the unity of the church.

So I didn't vote.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But if by worship styles we mean so-called no-liturgical worship, then no, I think that breaks the unity of the church.

You know, I have not visited churches with liturgical worship since I was too new in the faith to appreciate them. As I see this point of view often among those who do worship in this way, I am sincerely desiring to experience it once again.

As I said, there is likely to be something of value when so many find it. Though I find tremendous value in what they usually discount.

I'm not picking on you or disagreeing with you. Merely saying that I wish to know if there isn't great value in both styles of worship. (And I suspect there is)

Someone posted a picture from either an Orthodox or Lutheran worship service, I believe, which showed what appeared to me to be "actual worship" in my definition of the word.

My very limited experience with liturgical services was different from that.

 

[ValleyGal]

I believe conformity should be conforming to the mind and heart of the Lord Jesus, and unity has to do with how well we get along (like in loving each other) in this common goal. We are all united in the goal of conforming to Christ. That does not mean we all worship, think, act, look and feel the same as each other. After all, even Jesus had a personality, and it was different from the personalities of his disciples.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You know, I have not visited churches with liturgical worship since I was too new in the faith to appreciate them. As I see this point of view often among those who do worship in this way, I am sincerely desiring to experience it once again.

As I said, there is likely to be something of value when so many find it. Though I find tremendous value in what they usually discount.

I'm not picking on you or disagreeing with you. Merely saying that I wish to know if there isn't great value in both styles of worship. (And I suspect there is)

Someone posted a picture from either an Orthodox or Lutheran worship service, I believe, which showed what appeared to me to be "actual worship" in my definition of the word.

My very limited experience with liturgical services was different from that.

Point taken. My open position comes after a lot of research and soul-searched, having come out of the non-liturgical, evangelical/charismatic tradition myself.

If you're interested in enriching your spiritual life through the liturgy, I have a just humble recommendations for getting the most out of it:

First, before going read the basic texts in the Bible that inspired the main parts (the "ordo," which is the same week to week) of the western and eastern liturgies:

The Gloria, The Creed, The Offertory, The Sanctus, The Lord's Prayer, The Agnus Dei, The Nunc Dimittus

In addition, I would recommend reading through the "liturgical" portions of Isaiah 6 and Revelation 5 and 19 (those parts that depict the worship of God in heaven by the angels and dearly departed) in order to get a feel for some biblical texts and patterns that shape our worship, as well as the psalm-like poem songs sprinkled throughout Luke 1 and 2.

Second, when you go to any given service, go three weeks in a row if possible. The first week it may seem novel and interesting, but also strange and ackward; the second week it might begin to seem dull; but the third week a lot of people pick up the rhythm and it begins to fit like a glove, so to speak. I think this helps one appreciate it more, since it can be fairly inaccessible to those who aren't used to it.

Third, to get a feel for the unity-in-diversity of the liturgical tradition and the cultural shaping and heritage of liturgical tradition, I'd recommend not only going to one church three weeks in a row, but trying at least four: a Catholic Church that uses a traditional musical setting of the Novus Ordo, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that uses Device Service Setting III, an Episcopal or Anglican parish that uses the 1662 Book of Concord prayer, and an Eastern Orthodox Church (which will, unless it is a feast day, invariable use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). These churches and those particular expressions of the traditional liturgy are the really classic ones that reach back through time back to the earliest liturgies. It should help give you a real sense of the range of diversity within the liturgical tradition, while also making clear what it is about the liturgy that unites us. You can also find all of these on YouTube, and although that is nothing like experiencing the real thing, it might be a good preparation.

Caveat emptor: Lent is coming up, and the liturgies take on a very different character during that. I would recommend doing any readings and research now, email pastors and parishes to see what settings of the liturgy they use and when, whether they have weekly communion or not (you'll only be allowed to partake a moderate Lutheran churches and most Anglican/Episcopal ones) which they should if you're going to experience the real liturgy, and generally looking in to things. The period, however, after Pentecost (June 8 this year) until the end of November is a great GREAT time to go through and explore things for a couple months, because the liturgy is at it's most standard at that point. During Advent and especially Lent, traditional/liturgical churches replace standard elements of the liturgy with more penitential texts (e.g., no "alleluias" are sung); during Christmastide (the "Twelve Days" that follow Christmas) and Easter season, the celebratory atmosphere in the churches also alters some practices. However, Pentecost season, throughout the summer and fall, is a very standard season that will give you a great sense of what liturgical churches tend to be like week in and week out.

In the meantime, in addition to the biblical texts, I would highly recommend reading The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn as an excellent introduction to the theology of the liturgy from a traditional Catholic perspective (written by someone who used to be Presbyterian). It covers very well both the Orthodox and Catholic perspectives, and is relevant to the Anglican and Lutheran perspectives as well.

If you want and help finding churches in your area, appropriate texts to read, etc., just PM me and I'd be happy to help!

Blessings on your journey of discovery!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You know, I have not visited churches with liturgical worship since I was too new in the faith to appreciate them. As I see this point of view often among those who do worship in this way, I am sincerely desiring to experience it once again.

As I said, there is likely to be something of value when so many find it. Though I find tremendous value in what they usually discount.

I'm not picking on you or disagreeing with you. Merely saying that I wish to know if there isn't great value in both styles of worship. (And I suspect there is)

Someone posted a picture from either an Orthodox or Lutheran worship service, I believe, which showed what appeared to me to be "actual worship" in my definition of the word.

My very limited experience with liturgical services was different from that.

Also, I agree that there are aspects of worship and prayer that liturgical traditions tend to devalue to our determent. For the most part, I think this is less a symptom of liturgical-only ideas about worship than it is a general lack of spiritual activity throughout the rest of the week.

My problem with, say, charismatic worship, or with contemporary Christian music, is not that I do not believe that have value or at least potential for Christian life; the problem I have with them is that they cut against the grain of what the whole worship service is supposed to be about: the coming of Christ in grace and glory to penitent sinners who receive him in the word and the sacrament.

Those things can be great at small group Bible studies, fellowship meetings, etc., but we don't think they belong in the "divine liturgy" or "divine service" as it is variously called. And the reason these alternate expressions of Christian piety seem absent from a churches is, I think, largely because church so easily becomes something we do just on Sunday mornings. And, inasmuch as that's the case, I think it's a fair criticism of tradition mainline Protestantism and old world Eastern Orthodox (though not, I would note, of modern Catholicism).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Also, I agree that there are aspects of worship and prayer that liturgical traditions tend to devalue to our determent. For the most part, I think this is less a symptom of liturgical-only ideas about worship than it is a general lack of spiritual activity throughout the rest of the week.

My problem with, say, charismatic worship, or with contemporary Christian music, is not that I do not believe that have value or at least potential for Christian life; the problem I have with them is that they cut against the grain of what the whole worship service is supposed to be about: the coming of Christ in grace and glory to penitent sinners who receive him in the word and the sacrament.

Those things can be great at small group Bible studies, fellowship meetings, etc., but we don't think they belong in the "divine liturgy" or "divine service" as it is variously called. And the reason these alternate expressions of Christian piety seem absent from a churches is, I think, largely because church so easily becomes something we do just on Sunday mornings. And, inasmuch as that's the case, I think it's a fair criticism of tradition mainline Protestantism and old world Eastern Orthodox (though not, I would note, of modern Catholicism).

I can't tell you how much I appreciate hearing "the other side" because I've very much wanted to.

I hear comments made about praise songs and such, usually relating to how bad the theology is, if there is anything specific mentioned. Part of this is theological differences, where the theology sounds fine to some ears and not to others. But part of it, I am thinking, is that I am starting to see (if I understand correctly?) that at least part of the purpose of the liturgy is actually to TEACH theology?

From the point of view of the early church especially, I can truly appreciate that method. I know I myself learned such things as the books of the Bible and so on from recitation songs, and then when I was teaching my daughter, I bought tapes with Scripture songs, Psalms set to music, and so on to teach them to her, and I ended up learning some myself that I didn't already know. I can see a lot of value in the method, and even more so if there are a lack of written Scriptures or the inability of people to read.

Some years ago I attended 2 or even 3 churches at the same time, because they met on different days so that I could attend more often. Then the church I stayed at longest had services only on Sun and Wed, but with all the other things I was involved in at the church, I was there 5-6 times a week, plus one of the couples had a worship/study at their home once a week, so I felt I was "living" church back then. When I moved to CA and started traveling around, I found MANY churches to be "Sunday morning only" and it seemed like a desert to me. I guess I've gradually gotten used to it over the years, but I appreciate those churches that at least meet 3x a week.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Point taken. My open position comes after a lot of research and soul-searched, having come out of the non-liturgical, evangelical/charismatic tradition myself.

If you're interested in enriching your spiritual life through the liturgy, I have a just humble recommendations for getting the most out of it:

First, before going read the basic texts in the Bible that inspired the main parts (the "ordo," which is the same week to week) of the western and eastern liturgies:

The Gloria, The Creed, The Offertory, The Sanctus, The Lord's Prayer, The Agnus Dei, The Nunc Dimittus

In addition, I would recommend reading through the "liturgical" portions of Isaiah 6 and Revelation 5 and 19 (those parts that depict the worship of God in heaven by the angels and dearly departed) in order to get a feel for some biblical texts and patterns that shape our worship, as well as the psalm-like poem songs sprinkled throughout Luke 1 and 2.

Second, when you go to any given service, go three weeks in a row if possible. The first week it may seem novel and interesting, but also strange and ackward; the second week it might begin to seem dull; but the third week a lot of people pick up the rhythm and it begins to fit like a glove, so to speak. I think this helps one appreciate it more, since it can be fairly inaccessible to those who aren't used to it.

Third, to get a feel for the unity-in-diversity of the liturgical tradition and the cultural shaping and heritage of liturgical tradition, I'd recommend not only going to one church three weeks in a row, but trying at least four: a Catholic Church that uses a traditional musical setting of the Novus Ordo, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod that uses Device Service Setting III, an Episcopal or Anglican parish that uses the 1662 Book of Concord prayer, and an Eastern Orthodox Church (which will, unless it is a feast day, invariable use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). These churches and those particular expressions of the traditional liturgy are the really classic ones that reach back through time back to the earliest liturgies. It should help give you a real sense of the range of diversity within the liturgical tradition, while also making clear what it is about the liturgy that unites us. You can also find all of these on YouTube, and although that is nothing like experiencing the real thing, it might be a good preparation.

Caveat emptor: Lent is coming up, and the liturgies take on a very different character during that. I would recommend doing any readings and research now, email pastors and parishes to see what settings of the liturgy they use and when, whether they have weekly communion or not (you'll only be allowed to partake a moderate Lutheran churches and most Anglican/Episcopal ones) which they should if you're going to experience the real liturgy, and generally looking in to things. The period, however, after Pentecost (June 8 this year) until the end of November is a great GREAT time to go through and explore things for a couple months, because the liturgy is at it's most standard at that point. During Advent and especially Lent, traditional/liturgical churches replace standard elements of the liturgy with more penitential texts (e.g., no "alleluias" are sung); during Christmastide (the "Twelve Days" that follow Christmas) and Easter season, the celebratory atmosphere in the churches also alters some practices. However, Pentecost season, throughout the summer and fall, is a very standard season that will give you a great sense of what liturgical churches tend to be like week in and week out.

In the meantime, in addition to the biblical texts, I would highly recommend reading The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn as an excellent introduction to the theology of the liturgy from a traditional Catholic perspective (written by someone who used to be Presbyterian). It covers very well both the Orthodox and Catholic perspectives, and is relevant to the Anglican and Lutheran perspectives as well.

If you want and help finding churches in your area, appropriate texts to read, etc., just PM me and I'd be happy to help!

Blessings on your journey of discovery!

I really very much appreciate this information and suggestions! I think I was not fair in my assessment before - besides not being mature enough to be able to appreciate the service. The one church was all in Latin, as I recall. I had papers to read but it all meant nothing to me.

Anyway, I will do as you suggest, for at least some of these churches. I may pm you - I'm not sure if I can find some of those locally, and of the ones that I do know, I'm not sure if they are the particular types you suggest. I would like to take communion and there is an Episcopal church within driving distance that I visited once and they allowed me to take communion there. The funny thing is that I don't recall their service as being liturgical, but I didn't know what that was back then anyway. I just remember thinking of it as more "formal".

I'll see what I can find out from the churches, and I may take you up on that and pm you if I can't figure it out or find some.

I really appreciate the suggestions and info. I would have had no way at all of knowing these things otherwise, and I would like to know what this is like.

Thanks so much for your help.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think a lot has to do with rules set down that don't necessarily say what you should do, but restrict what you CAN do.

I will never forget, as long as I live, when a visitor at our CoC said aloud, "Praise God!" Someone turned around to him, and said, "We don't do that here!"

I doubt the member really understood exactly what he just admitted..... but I sure suddenly realized it.

I do know exactly what you mean too, Willie. I have been in churches and heard those kinds of admonitions and had the same thoughts.

CoC = Church of Christ? I attended one briefly, but only because the lady we were staying with in one city became interested in church again because we were staying with her (Praise the Lord!) but her family had only ever attended Church of Christ, so that's the only place she was comfortable. For that reason, we went to church with her.

It was not a place I felt at home - mainly because (I'm not sure this is typical) we were repeatedly told that theirs was the only church that had the truth and no one else would be saved. That's usually a deal-breaker for me right there.

 

[sunlover1]

Is unity possible without some level of conformity (agreement on doctrine, how we worship, or whichever)? What does unity look like? How much conformity is needed in the church setting?

ONEness is what christ prayed for.
It's much deeper than just unity.
It's like when a man and wife become one.

I think a lot has to do with rules set down that don't necessarily say what you should do, but restrict what you CAN do.

I will never forget, as long as I live, when a visitor at our CoC said aloud, "Praise God!" Someone turned around to him, and said, "We don't do that here!"

I doubt the member really understood exactly what he just admitted..... but I sure suddenly realized it.

...we were repeatedly told that theirs was the only church that had the truth and no one else would be saved. That's usually a deal-breaker for me right there.

Would be for me too.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I can't tell you how much I appreciate hearing "the other side" because I've very much wanted to.

I hear comments made about praise songs and such, usually relating to how bad the theology is, if there is anything specific mentioned. Part of this is theological differences, where the theology sounds fine to some ears and not to others. But part of it, I am thinking, is that I am starting to see (if I understand correctly?) that at least part of the purpose of the liturgy is actually to TEACH theology?

From the point of view of the early church especially, I can truly appreciate that method. I know I myself learned such things as the books of the Bible and so on from recitation songs, and then when I was teaching my daughter, I bought tapes with Scripture songs, Psalms set to music, and so on to teach them to her, and I ended up learning some myself that I didn't already know. I can see a lot of value in the method, and even more so if there are a lack of written Scriptures or the inability of people to read.

Some years ago I attended 2 or even 3 churches at the same time, because they met on different days so that I could attend more often. Then the church I stayed at longest had services only on Sun and Wed, but with all the other things I was involved in at the church, I was there 5-6 times a week, plus one of the couples had a worship/study at their home once a week, so I felt I was "living" church back then. When I moved to CA and started traveling around, I found MANY churches to be "Sunday morning only" and it seemed like a desert to me. I guess I've gradually gotten used to it over the years, but I appreciate those churches that at least meet 3x a week.

I think you've really hit the nail on the head with the bits I've put in bold. That's especially how Lutherans have typically described and defended the traditional liturgy.

There's another important dimension, though, as well, that is well brought out in the book I mentioned (Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper) as well as his follow-up, Letter and Spirit, and is more the focus of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. The liturgy doesn't only teach us about salvation, but reenacts salvation history. In doing so, we dramatically reenact the work of God for us in his covenant-driven history of redemption (a history covered very well in Hahn's A Father Who Keeps His Promises, but also and especially in Michael Horton's God of Promise).

Thus, the liturgy begins with a confession of sins and the Kyrie (the chant "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy), just as the history of God's redemption of the world begins with human sin. But there we an initial promise of forgiveness, either through the absolution or especially through the singing of the Gloria.

We go on from there to read the Scriptures, and thus return to God's own record of salvation history as contained in the Torah, the prophets, the Psalms, and finally the New Testament and especially the Gospels. The sermon, of course, explains these, but it also prepares our hearts and minds to reenact the incarnation and resurrection through the Eucharist.

In the Offertory, we not only offer our tithes in response to the tale of salvation we have heard, but also as a time to bring together the bread and wine- the fruits of the earth- and prepare a throne in which Christ will soon be seated in our presence. I think this is a key to understanding why we find the liturgy so important, and especially weekly communion: to have an offering without communion reduces the offering to a donation, rather than as a means for gathering the community in anticipation of our Lord's return.

At this point, we begin the service of the sacrament and sing "lift up our hearts" because not only is Christ's body about to come down to us, but our spirits are literally being raised up to the heavenly throneroom/tabernacle to join in the worship of the Triune God "with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven," singing "Holy, Holy, Holy..." (the Sanctus). The gap between heaven and earth is being narrowed, the veil is being down, and the drama is about to come to its climax.

That climax is immediately anticipated by the Lord's Prayer, which prayers for the end of days (the kingdom) to come on earth, of which we are given a foretaste of the feast to come, the marriage feast of lamb, right now in holy communion. The response to the Lord's Prayer is the coming of Christ in communion.

Christ's coming in the Eucharist/holy communion/Lord's Supper not only reenacts his incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, it also anticipates his coming again in glory at the end of days. Salvation history is, at this point, not only fully recounted, but made real and new for us as we experience both the full intimacy with Christ the disciples had in their fellowship meals and the full glory of Christ's final marriage feast that he will hold at his return. Not only his salvation history reenacted through communion- it is furthered, day by day, in our own lives, and time and space collapse under the glory of his intensely personal relationship we enjoy at this sacred moment.

And, finally, if the liturgy has done it's job, it not only teaches us, it renews us to go out in the world and make the future a reality now. Having glimpsed the future God wants for the world, we take that energy and bring it to our neighbors in works of evangelism and service. To paraphrase Luther and Calvin, "No salvation without vocation."

Oh dear! I've gone on again! Oh well! Now you probably don't have to read The Lamb's Supper.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think a lot has to do with rules set down that don't necessarily say what you should do, but restrict what you CAN do.

I will never forget, as long as I live, when a visitor at our CoC said aloud, "Praise God!" Someone turned around to him, and said, "We don't do that here!"

I doubt the member really understood exactly what he just admitted..... but I sure suddenly realized it.

Well that's disappointing.

I feel like part of the problem is that traditional Calvinist and Arminian mainline Protestantism so completely omitted the liturgy that there was no outlet for acclamations of lamentation and praise. The traditional liturgy involves (or at least should involve) constant oral and bodily affirmations by the gathered community. If it doesn't, it becomes not only bland, but little more than a seminar.

 

[from scratch]

Is unity possible without some level of conformity (agreement on doctrine, how we worship, or whichever)? What does unity look like? How much conformity is needed in the church setting?

How can there be unity without conformity?