One of the biggest challenges I faced in Japanese churches is “unity.” When we first started attending a certain Japanese church, we were told that we are free to express our thoughts and that we should openly discuss disagreements in the church context. They said that we are 仲間 or “one of us”. Over the years, we realized that they expected us to adopt their ways of thinking and ways of doing things, since we are part of them now. They said that this what the Bible means when it says 一致 (“unity” in the English translation). So what, then, is “unity”? What did it mean in the Biblical context, in its original context when it was written?

Unity in the New Testament

Two verses come to mind from the New Testament when we think about “unity”: Ephesians 4:3 and 4:13.

“eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Ephesians 4:3

“until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,”
Ephesians 4:13

In both verses, the Greek word used for “unity” is ενιˊτης (henotēs). It comes from ει~ς (heis), meaning “one.” It implies a state of being one, oneness, solidarity. From its root meaning of “oneness” or “solidarity,” one might initially assume it means a group agrees on the same thing, leaving no room for argument or discussion. In fact, this Greek word focuses on the state of being one – a profound relational and spiritual oneness – rather than an enforced uniformity of opinion or the absolute absence of discussion. If we look at the immediate context of these verses, this nuance quickly becomes apparent.

“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Ephesians 4:1-3

Ephesus was a diverse city, with people from various backgrounds and cultures. It was home to the immense and magnificent Temple of Artemis (Diana), one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. This brought pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean, creating a vibrant, yet also deeply pagan, religious atmosphere. There were numerous other shrines, temples, and cults. This environment fostered a culture of religious tolerance and syncretism, where people often blended different beliefs. 

The church was also a diverse one, with members coming from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. As such there were conflicting thoughts around how one ought to live out their faith. Jews often believed in strict adherence to the law, including circumcision, and some within the church may have encouraged Gentiles to follow these same practices, creating tension. It is under these circumstances that Paul was calling for unity. What sort of unity was Paul calling for? 

“4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Ephesians 4:4-6

These are the non-negotiable points of unity. These are the things believers must be united on. They are the fixed points around which diversity can flourish. This helps define the scope of unity Paul is talking about. Notice that he does not talk about which ministry is more important, the mode of baptism, the order of the service, or how church leadership should be set up. None of these are points where we need to have unity. There needs to be unity in the core truths relating to God, faith which includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and baptism (identification) into the body of Christ. There can be diversity in the way that these truths can be carried out.

“7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift… 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,”
Ephesians 4:7, 11-12

Different gifts were given to different believers, and these gifts were given by Christ. This not only affects the way that we do things or how we structure things in the church, but it also affects the way we think about what the Bible is saying. While there must be unity in core truths, there can and should be diversity in how we interpret and apply the Bible in our daily thoughts and actions, as we are all led by the Spirit and gifted differently. This very diversity, when embraced within the framework of foundational truths, builds up the body of Christ and contributes to genuine unity. 

Unity in a Western Context

How does the New Testament understanding of “unity” compare with how it is understood in a western context? There certainly is a strong emphasis on individual thought and freedom. Thus, when you attend a healthy church you are often encouraged to read the Bible on your own and investigate whether what is said by the preacher is aligned to the Bible. This has often led to great discussions in church communities that align them better with the Bible, while there are other cases where it has led to division. Denominationalism is a good example of this. Each denomination has their own emphasis, and they all insist that their beliefs are aligned with the Bible. 

In Western contexts, much like the environment influenced by Sophists in ancient Ephesus (known for their rhetoric, eloquent speaking, and persuasive argumentation), building your case, stating your opinion, and refuting others’ arguments is standard practice. It is widely acceptable to have a different opinion than others in practices, worship styles, and non-essential theological interpretations. Disagreements are often tolerated within a broader framework of unity. 

Unity in a Japanese Context

In most Japanese Bibles, ενιˊτης (henotēs) is tranted as 一致 (icchi). What does icchi mean in a Japanese context? 

Icchi, on the one hand, has the sense of one-ness of heart, working together, and being a collective body. This appears to be similar to what the New Testament teaches about how a church should be. The group works together as one body towards the same goal. On the other hand, icchi also means that there is absolutely no difference and that everyone is on the same page. There may be several opinions out there, but where there is icchi there is absolutely no difference in opinion, process, and ideology. There is unanimity. If you have icchi with a group, it means you are conforming to that group. 

There are several factors from Japanese culture that contribute to this.  Japanese culture places a very high value on group harmony (和,wa), which avoids conflicts and drives a group to consensus. There must be icchi because there must be Wa in every Japanese social context. There is also a culture of consensus-driven decision making. Before any decision is made, there is a long process of speaking to every stakeholder and ensuring that there is a consensus before moving forward. Disagreements are suppressed or not expressed. There is a pressure to confirm, as challenges are seen as disruptive. 

This is prevalent in the Japanese church. When a pastor or respected elder speaks, there is very little to no confrontation even if they are wrong. When the church leadership makes a decision and they know there are certain individuals who disagree, separate individual meetings are held to drive those individuals to conform. If those individual meetings do not work, the individual will be called into the leadership meeting and be questioned why they are not “with the group.” In worst cases, the individuals will be called out during congregational meetings as being disruptive or argumentative. This is all in the effort to suppress diverse thinking and uphold the icchi of the church. 

Towards a Fuller Understanding of Unity

The Bible presents ενιˊτης (henotēs) as oneness in Spirit/faith, relational solidarity, allowing for diversity. Western “Unity” is understood as core doctrinal agreement, shared mission, and tolerates diversity in non-essentials. Japanese 一致 (icchi) has a strong emphasis on unanimity, conformity, and consensus, all in an effort to uphold the cultural value of “Wa”. 

The problem with icchi is that it not only foregos the original meaning that the Bible presents, but it creates a burden for Japanese believers to suppress their thoughts and conform to their leadership. It could also suppress individual conscience or theological exploration. It can lead to ostracization of those who don’t perfectly conform, even if the difference is non-essential. There is a shift in focus from unity of the Spirit (which includes diversity) to a unity of opinion. 

The Bible clearly shows us where we are to have unity and where we are allowed diversity. For Western believers, understanding henotēs challenges us to consider where our individualism might lead to fragmentation  and how we can better set aside non-essential differences for the sake of Christ and the Gospel. For Japanese believers, understanding henotēs beyond the common interpretation of icchi can reveal a profound freedom to explore and express their Spirit-led convictions, fostering a unity rooted in love and Christ, rather than compelled conformity. 

Genuine unity is often harder than mere agreement; it requires love, patience, humility, and a willingness to understand and bear with one another. It’s about being “one in Christ” even if we don’t always think identically on every single point. Perhaps true unity is not the absence of disagreement, but the presence of love and respect that allows for healthy disagreement within a shared bond in Christ.

Our first child was baptized last Sunday. This was a huge milestone for us, seeing our child come to accept for their own the faith that we had been raising them under. While part of them coming to faith was due to the talks with our child and what they have been hearing at church, I believe that a big factor in translating those teachings into personal belief was due to the Christian school they are going to and the youth group that takes place every other week. This is similar to my personal experience, having been raised in a Christian home but not really accepting the faith on my own until I went to youth camp. This is why I believe children need an opportunity to step away from their immediate family’s influence at times and think through what they have been taught and personalize it. 

The interesting part of the baptism was that it happened at a Presbyterian church. My wife and I have had Baptist influences regarding baptism, and we felt it most appropriate for our child to become fully wet (if not fully immersed) during baptism. Of course, this is contrary to how most Presbyterians baptize, which is by sprinkling. While we have our differences, the leadership at the church agreed to set up a pool outside (there was no baptismal), and the pastor proceeded with an immersion baptism for the first time ever in his career. We were very grateful for their accommodations, and it was refreshing to see such a desire to serve the members more than lord over them. 

I will not say, though, that we have not had our share of discussions around what it is that Presbyterians believe about baptism. I still get teased about how I should “repent” of my theology. However, I do not find credible evidence from the Bible around accepting the notion of “covenant baptism” as it is applied by the Presbyterians. 

As an example of how “covenant baptism” is explained, here is a video that I was given to watch. 

While the video has decent explanations from the Bible, I am still left with several questions.

Does the New Covenant apply to believers and non-believers?

Jeremiah 31:34 is used as evidence for this. “And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” The argument goes that all covenants in the Bible include believers and non-believers, and the New Covenant is no exception. Although verses 31-33 mentions that “they shall know me… For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more”, verse 34 mentions that no one needs to teach their neighbor to “know the Lord,” which means that the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled because there are obviously teachers and preachers today. The New Covenant provided has not reached its “fullness,” when Jesus returns and separates the believers from the unbelievers. Thus, in the present age the New Covenant applies to believers and unbelievers, where there needs to be a continuous teaching to “know the Lord.”

While the argument appears to be credible, there are a few challenges. 

First, taking a passage that is a contiguous thought process and splitting it so that part of it applies to present age and another part to the future, can lead to incorrect interpretation and application. Verses 31-34 is one statement, so it would be more natural to try to understand its message in one context and setting. 

Second, the prophet Jeremiah is referring to a New Covenant that includes putting God’s law within the hearts of the people, the people belonging to God, the people knowing God, and God forgiving their sins. It is natural to see that the New Covenant is referring to a people who already know and belong to God and who do not need to be taught to “know” (yada) or acknowledge God. This prophecy is not something for the future pointing to Christ’s separating the believers and unbelievers when he returns. This is a New Covenant given to those who have already put their faith in Christ. 

Third, we now have the Holy Spirit within us who teaches us all things and brings to our remembrance all that Jesus has said to us (John 14:26). True, we still have pastors and teachers today, but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who causes and enables us to follow Jesus (John 16:13-15; Gal. 5:16). 

Is baptism a sign of the covenant? 

Assuming that the New Covenant applies to both believers and non-believers, it is argued that this includes those who are believers in the church and their children. In order to signify that the children are part of the covenant, a sign is given to them in the form of baptism. This baptism becomes a commitment for the community to participate in influencing an inward change in the child as they are raised in the covenant community. 

This argument also appears to be credible and refers to how covenants were applied throughout the Old Testament. However, at the forefront of this argument is the assumption that the New Covenant applies to both believers and non-believers, and there are challenges to this. 

The video also rightly notes that baptism is an outward expression of an inward belief for believers. The caveat to this is that the video also mentions that the case is different for infants. The Bible has a lot to say about baptism being an expression of one’s belief. 

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous ,that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in spirit… Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:18-21

Baptism is not a sign of the covenant. It is pointing to Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. By being baptized we are identifying with what Jesus has done for us so that we can appeal (or respond) to God with a good conscience. In other words, the act of baptism does not save us, nor does it seal us within a covenant community, but it signifies what God has already done for us and how we have responded to this in faith. It is an outward expression of inward belief. 

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians 2:11-12

We are not circumcised physically as the males in Israel were in the Old Testament. Our hearts are circumcised as Jeremiah prophesied. Circumcision is an act of the Holy Spirit bringing a person to faith in Christ. The heart circumcision is then demonstrated by baptism, which signifies externally what happened to our hearts. We were buried with him in baptism and raised with Christ “through faith.” 

How are New Covenant members defined? 

There are challenges in accepting that the New Covenant includes non-believers and believers. It is also challenging to accept that the sign of the covenant needs to be applied to the non-believing children of believers. How, then, can we define who is included in the New Covenant? 

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

John 1:12-13

First, we can see that the children of God are not born of flesh nor the will of man. They are not the physical descent of believers as they were in the Old Testament. Children of God are those who receive and believe in Jesus. They are enabled to receive and believe Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Being born into a believer’s family does not make them children of God. 

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.  

Romans 9:6-8

Second, even in the Old Testament covenants, not all descendants of Israel were considered to be part of Israel. Just because they were born into a household in Israel, they were not necessarily part of the people of God. Verse 11 says, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. It is the election of God that enabled individuals to be part of God’s family and receive the benefits of the New Covenant. 

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

Acts 2:38-39

On the one hand this text seems to encourage believers to baptize their children because they are part of the promise (New Covenant), but a closer examination of the text is warranted. 

We see an exhortation to “repent and be baptized.” This is the standard order of events prescribed by this text. There needs to be a repentance and faith in Christ, and then baptism follows. Because baptism is an outward expression of an inward change, it does not make sense to baptize children before there is faith.

The promise for forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit is for believers, for their children, and for anyone else. The caveat is “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Although as parents we want all of our children to be part of the New Covenant, this cannot happen unless God calls them. Physical descent does not guarantee their membership into God’s family. 

Yet we lean on God’s word and trust that all who receive and believe in Jesus become the children of God. That’s why we commit ourselves to raise our children to know the Lord and exhort them to follow him. That’s why we pray for them and address their questions when there are doubts. Just as our first child came to faith and was baptized, we continue to live out our faith and have conversations with our children so that they can truly be part of the New Covenant.

長老の定義

女性が長老になれるかの議論をする前に、まず「長老」という教会での役割を確認する必要がある。

1. 長老は教会を治め、教える役割がある（１テモテ３：２，５：１７）
2. 長老は健全な教えをもって教会を励まし、反対する人を戒める役割がある（テトス１：９）

長老は教会の指導者であり、聖書から真理を見出し、それを教会の公式な見解として教会に教えていく責務がある。その真理が常に健全であるように、聖書と照らし合わせて必要に応じて理解を修正していく必要もある。この真理を教えるにあたって、教会を励ますことを第一に考えること。教会を縛るのではなく、聖書の真理として伝えたうえで、真理に従うよう励ましを通して促すことが重要。促すのであれば、長老自身が真理に立って生きていることを見せる必要がある。そして、長老は聖書の真理に反する異端的な教えや言動に対して反論し、真理に引き戻す役割がある。

ちなみに、「執事」は長老と違い、教えることも収めることも求められていない。そういう意味では、「女性は長老になれるか」、の議論は「女性は執事になれるか」、の議論と異なる。

女性は長老になれるか？

女性が長老になれるかについて、1テモテ2:11-14が言及している。

11 女は、よく従う心をもって静かに学びなさい。12 私は、女が教えたり男を支配したりすることを許しません。むしろ、静かにしていなさい。13 アダムが初めに造られ、それからエバが造られたからです。14 そして、アダムはだまされませんでしたが、女はだまされて過ちを犯したのです。”

テモテへの手紙第一 2: 11-14

１．神の創造の業とこの世のあるべき順序を表すのが、１３節にある「アダムが初めに造られ、それからエバが造られた」ことである。つまり、アダム（男性）が先に造られたため、家族において、また教会において男性が支配すべきことを指している。「支配」と言うと聞こえは悪いが、聖書における「支配」は「サーバントリーダー」という言葉でまとめることができ、イエス・キリストが最も良い例の「支配者」である。教会を「支配」するのは長老なので、あるべき順序の観点から、男性でないと長老の役割を果たすことができないと言える。

２．１４節によると「アダムはだまされませんでしたが、女はだまされて過ちを犯した」とある。これは、女性は男性より騙されやすいという意味ではない。サタンは、神の創造したあるべき順序を無視し、アダムではなくエバをまず誘惑した。あるべき順序を無視する結果として罪が生まれている。創造の順序を無視して女性が教会を収める長老となれば、神が定めた自然な形から逸脱することになり、罪に陥る可能性が高まるとも言える。

よって、長老の職務に置ける、教会を収め、教会に真理を教える立場は、神が示したあるべき姿にしたがって男性のみが担うべきだとこの箇所から読み取れる。

もちろん、これは女性が教会で教えることをすべて放棄すべきだということではない。例えば、テトス２：３によると、年配の女性は若い女性を教える役割がある。しかし、男性よりも上の立場において教えることは神の順序に反すると言える。この順序が問題であり、女性の能力は問題ではない。

参考資料
https://www.desiringgod.org/books/50-crucial-questions-about-manhood-and-womanhood

女性の視点

ある女性は様々なクリスチャンの集まりで登壇した経験があり、多くのクリスチャンを励ましてきている。この女性が教会で語るとき、次のことを検討したうえで登壇するかを決めている。

1. 場所：教会の会衆か、教会でない参加者
2. 内容：みことばの解き明かしか、励ますための証
3. 権限：指示しているのか、共有しているのか。つまり、参加者に公式な見解を示しているのか？
4. 関係：個人的か、客観的意見か。参加者と個人的な関係があるのか、指示しようとしているのか？
5. 義務：公式か、非公式。参加者は公式な見解を求めているのか？
6. 責任：義務があるか、任意か。参加者は語られたことに従う義務があるのか？
7. 頻度：毎回か、時々か。毎回語る必要があるのか、時々語るだけで良いのか？
8. 成熟度：姉妹か、母親か。参加者に対して、母親として語っているのか？

語る場面が左によるようであれば、女性として語るべきでない場面だと認識している。左側の場合、教会の指導者として教え、収める傾向が含まれているため、女性としては相応しくないとこの女性は主張している。

参考資料
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/women-teaching-men-how-far-is-too-far
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/men-and-women-in-the-deaconate-and-in-the-service-of-communion 

女性は説教・奨励をしても良いか？

女性が長老になれないかも知れないが、女性は教会で説教や奨励をすることはできるのだろうか？ある牧師によると、長老の許可を得ていれば女性は説教や奨励をすることができると主張している。彼の主張は次の通りである。

1. 説教・奨励のすべては教えることではない。新約聖書には他の種類の語りがある。例えば、励まし、予言、福音を伝えること。女性がこのような語りをすることは禁じられていない。
2. 「教える」ということは、新約聖書が書かれる前の時代において、イエス・キリストの証言の一貫性を保つ働きに特化していた。
3. 1コリント14;26，コロサイ3:16によると、教会のすべての人が互いを教え、励ます必要があり、女性もこれに含まれている。

この牧師の教会では、長老でない人が説教・奨励をするとき、事前に原稿を長老に提出し、承認された後に語ることができる。なので、権限は長老にあり、語る人はその権限の元で奉仕している。男女問わず、このプロセスにのっとって説教・奨励をしている。

しかし、パウロは「女性が長老の職務についてはならない、」と言っているだけではない。長老の職務についてはならないし、その役割をも果たしてはならないと言っている。つまり、治める権限と教える役割の両方が認められない、ということである。

また、この教会では単発的な励ましや予言が語られているのではない。事前に原稿が提出され、承認されていることから、これはれっきとした説教・奨励、つまり教えであり、コロサイ3:16や1コリント14:26にある非公式な教えとは異なる。

「教える」ということは、キリストとみことばの教えを解き明かし、公式に伝えることを指す。（1コリント12:28-29、エペソ4:11、1テモテ2:7、2テモテ3:16、ヤコブ3:1）この権限は長老に与えられていて（1テモテ5:17）、教えることによって異端と反論する役割がある。（1テモテ1:3, 10、4:1, 6、6:3、2テモテ4:1、テトス1:9, 11）これは新約聖書が書かれる前の時代に特化したことではない。

参考資料
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-not-to-have-a-woman-preach