The church of old defined itself in two ways. First, it confessed what was the faith (fides quae) was. But perhaps just as importantly, it also confessed what the faith was not. I fear that standing on the banks of the flood of the modern ecumenical movement, even those of us who have not jumped in head first have at times let our feet become wet with the idea that we must focus on what most churches agree on rather than what we disagree on. That has stopped us from being clear about what the faith is not. And such an approach has been toxic to the church at large. It has allowed entire church bodies to embrace wholly non-christian ideas while still remaining under the broad banner of the Christian faith. It has also allowed non-christian churches (such as LDS) to slip in among the crowd as well. We must start again to be loving enough to identify what is NOT Christianity so that large number of peoples are not led astray by the wolves who look remarkably fuzzy.
I am not suggest that we become the church solely of NO. We must always be known first for the things we say YES to. But in defining the faith, both works are important for the life and salvation of those that come into contact with the visible church. Yes, we must say what is NOT Christianity.
I have like 5 different directions I want to go in this response but I’m only going to venture down one path right now.
In my pretty diverse teaching experiences, I’ve encountered several situations where “no” was discouraged. Sometimes, I completely understood – with kindergarteners, for example, it’s much more pleasant and equally effective to say “Chair legs go on the floor” or “I love the way Sam is sitting in his seat” than to say to a child, “No leaning back on your chair!” But at other times, it was really frustrating. When I worked with kids with disabilities, we weren’t allowed to say “no” to one child, ever – but due to her disability, she couldn’t always understand where the boundaries were without a clear, concise “no.” We also missed the opportunity to model for her appropriate boundary-setting.
I think it’s a societal issue in general. The word “no” is, of course, negative in nature. That’s OK. There are practices in this world that need to be avoided, and boundaries to be set, and I think kids (and adults) need to be taught that it’s OK and healthy (and positive, even) to say “no” at times.
Regarding specifically Christianity and unity, I agree with what you’ve posted, but I do think we need to watch carefully that we are saying “no” to what God says no to, and not to things that are beyond our personal preference and comfort zones.
I think it is important to rehearse with the audience the importance of Defining the Church historically and the illustration of LDS is appropriate but too obvious and safely distant; how many of your audience are mormans? Those reading include those who wish to define Faith as Orthodoxy alone and those who wish to define Orthopraxis alone; right doctrine or right practice.
Of course followers of the Way have always had their work cut out for them living the life and leading others to live the life and rightly excluding those who deny or defy the Faith. I would also support the idea that it is not just our love that motivates to perform say, excommunication. Paul indicated a resolve that I think was based on the Jealous Love of the Truth in Christ in whom Paul was not just a believer or just an Apostle but a passionate admirer of the Christ of the New Testament. A personal knowledge with the ascended Redeemer is evidenced in Paul’s perspective.
While praying for those defiant Corrinthians, Paul was nonetheless willing to cut them loose and give then to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. (ICor.5:5)
We must also understand the the commission was to evangelise the world, not convert the world; missing all the opportunities to share our faith in a month may be a tragedy, a great tragedy, but having zero conversions or confessions of faith that month is NOT for the believer, a tragedy laid at the believers feet.