In politics you often hear the phrase “bi-partisan”, such as “We need a bi-partisan approach to this issue”.  The phrase is supposed to convey a sense of cooperation & compromise so that the end-goal can be achieved without impasse.  Anyone not submitting to this bi-partisanship is labeled “extremists” or inflexible. Those who are always seeking this bi-partisan support are typically called “moderates”.  Moderates are middle grounders that supposedly do not lean to one extreme or the other.

I’ve seen many folks that try to bring this bi-partisan approach into religion & even more specifically into Christianity.  In the various theological debates, be it over the supposed neutral freewill of mankind versus the complete sovereignty of God or the nature of the end of world versus the end of age there is always someone trying to advocate for the moderate bi-partisan position. (see molinism)

Bi-partisanship may work to some degree in politics because the debates are merely over man-made opinions which are never finite but does it work in religion & especially in Christianity?  Is it really possible to advocate a “halt between two opinions” positions in regards to biblical teaching?

Further, who gets to decide such things?  There is a saying; “The Papists made the Church the final authority, the Anabaptists/Pentecostals made the conscience the final authority, & the Reformers made the Scriptures the final authority”.

Thus, there is a sort of “tri-partisan” approach among Christians.  How do all of these approaches come to cooperation & compromise or is there really only one final authority?

Even if all will ultimately give Scripture the final authority, then someone will ask “whose interpretation of Scripture?” & so we are back at the original dilemma.  The Papists settle this new dilemma by saying the Pope ultimately settles the matter of correct interpretation.  The Anabaptists/Pentecostals settle this new dilemma by saying the Spirit speaks to each man’s heart/conscience even if the conclusions contradict Scripture or another “Holy Spirit led” conclusion.  The Reformers settle this new dilemma by appealing to the Church & the leading of the Holy Spirit in the proper interpretation/hermeneutic of the Scriptures – ultimately relying on the fact that a humble person, putting aside all bias & letting Scripture interpret Scripture with consideration of context, idioms & other modes of speech, historical work by former theologians in the Church, & especially an understanding of typology may come to a proper interpretation.

There are obviously many ways to get to a “one mind” understanding – You can do it by trusting mainly one man, be it a Pope or a Pastor.  You can do it by trusting mainly your own conscience/opinion to guide you.  You can do it by trusting consensus (what the majority position is – which is constantly changing).  But the biblical, God-honoring way is to let Scripture speak where it speaks & be silent where it is silent.  Do not try to tease out more than is there nor deductively speculate where it is silent.

It may be easier to let one man tell us what the Bible is saying or it may be more exciting to go on journeys where our own understanding & opinions lead us, but if the Church is really going to be of one mind, it must get back to searching the mind of God – which is exactly what the Scriptures are supposed to convey.

There is no room for bi-partisanship in Christianity.  We are to be of “one mind” in Christ & it is not our minds or our individual opinions upon which we are to lean.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.