Bauder asks the question in the title. Here's his answer:
- Because of our unity
- In the gospel
- By the gospel
- For the gospel
- Because of the gospel
- Because we understand the limits of our unity
Here are a few of the particularly salient quotes stitched together (warning) with very little context. And by the way, my regurgitation of the above outline is probably not comprehensive.
There is a kind of popular philosophy within contemporary Christianity that seems to believe that unity or fellowship are all-or-nothing. I believe that is a disastrous philosophy. It has been disastrous both for evangelicals and for some fundamentalists . . . No one can implement that philosophy consistently.Near the conclusion, Bauder also addresses the point that has been kicked around on this blog recently—the need for people from different orthodox theological perspectives to listen and learn from each other.
Not every aspect of the faith is equally important.
There are certain activities and certain forms of fellowship that are not affected by the differences between us . . . It’s lamentable that we do not yet experience complete unity in the faith, but it is not nearly as lamentable as if we were to try to bury some aspect of the faith in order to achieve some sort of a contrived unity. You see, we are not only committed to the gospel. We are committed to the whole counsel of God.
I would not want you to stop being Presbyterians [while you believed in Presbyterian distinctives] just so we could enjoy some greater level of contrived unity. That would be wrong for you to do.
I love you too much to ask you to surrender or sacrifice your obedience to Christ . . . I love you enough that I want you to obey the Bible as you understand it, because you are going to have to give answer to God for your understanding of the Scripture someday . . . We love each other too much to let errors go unchallenged.
Amen and amen.