THE URGENCY OF UNITY

(Summary of Remarks at Louisville Christian Fellowship Week, Aug. 29, 1961)

Paul’s sober words in Eph. 5:16 suggest the urgency of the unity of all Christians: “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” The RSV renders it: “Making the most of the time, for the days are evil.” Unlike the Greek word chronos, which means “time” in respect to days, seasons, and hours, the term kairos, used by Paul in this passage, can mean “fitting season” or “opportunity.” So we have Weymouth’s rendition: “Buy up your opportunities . . . “ And Goodspeed’s: “Make the most of your opportunity. . .”

Kairos is never the material measured by clocks and calendars, but it is a critical time, demanding time, fit time — a time of crisis! Paul’s admonition to “Redeem the time” is actually an insistence that we “Buy up the opportunities” while we still have a chance. While Paul is speaking in this particular context of the behavior of Christians, that is, that the saints should use every opportunity to live as the wise and not as the unwise, this passage appears in a book in which the oneness of Christ’s church is the principal theme, and so it might well be thought of as an urgent appeal for unity.

“Make the most of your opportunity, for these are critical times” could well become our watchword in the Restoration Movement. The phrase “for the days are evil” presents an odd reason for our vigilance. Perhaps one commentator is right when he suggests that this was a trader’s proverb, borrowed from the marketplace. A merchant need not be particularly cautious when times are good, for anyone can do well then. It is when the economy changes and times become critical that the trader must make the most of every opportunity if he is to make a living. “Evil days” are therefore times of crisis, when the most must be made of the opportunities that remain or all will be lost.

In one sense our age is the most critical in human history. Never before have we faced the circumstance where the careless error of a few men, or perhaps the mistake of only one person, could lead to the annihilation of civilization. And never before has man become the victim of his own creative genius to the degree that his ingenuity is a threat to his very existence. During a recent visit to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, I was made to realize as never before the tremendous power that man has harnessed for the purpose of destruction. When one can view with his own eyes those ominous Jupiters, Redstones, Honest Johns, Little Johns, Pershings, Sergeants — and that awful Hawk that has the ingenuity of “homing in all the way for the kill” — and then remembers that the Communists have equal powers of annihilation, he is shocked with the realization that already ours is a beleaguered world.

There seems to be no end to the improved weapons of human destruction. The Air Force Titan will be launched from underground and will have the capacity to deliver a huge nuclear explosive 6,000 miles away in less than 20 minutes! The destructive power of the latest explosives is now measured in megatons of TNT (a million tons) instead of tons. Along with atomic and hydrogen bombs there is the prospect of a neutron bomb and still others that are incalculable in destructive power. I was told at Redstone that the present largest nuclear bomb — a single bomb — is capable of destroying a city the size of Nashville. Within a radius of seven miles everything would be pulverized, leaving a giant crater seven miles across and one-half mile deep. The radioactive pulverized particles would be blown miles high into the sky and would drift with the wind, causing death to hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions more for hundreds of miles. Within 20 or 30 miles of where the bomb strikes it would be impossible for any person to survive except those in strongly fortified shelters. It is altogether possible for the blast itself to kill a million people if dropped on a large American city, pulverizing their bodies, with millions of others destroyed by radiation — all by a single bomb.

When one stops to think that such hardware is cocked and primed, even aimed at the great cities and military targets of the world, he realizes that the human family faces the greatest crisis of its history. It is no less critical than if someone (and perhaps a mentally ill person) were holding a double-barrel shotgun at your head all the time. Whether you eat, walk, talk, or lie down to sleep this disturbed person has this shotgun to your temple with his finger resting uneasily on the trigger.

Is that critical enough for you? This crisis is aggravated by a “separation of worlds” that has never been so grim. Surely the world has been torn by strife and war and by opposing cultures many times before (even twice before in this century), but “the great divide” of our time between East and West appears so irreconcilable and final as to daunt the spirit. It seems that for the first time in history it is impossible for nations to have any dialogue or discourse about their problems, and they must certainly have no recourse to war, unless they choose to destroy the world.

This is the kairos of Paul’s plea. Time may well be running out on us. Unity is urgent, not only because the time is short, but because the present crisis creates a circumstance in which man is finding a new plateau of human endeavor. The disunity and separateness of class, race, and nation, once taken for granted as the expected way of life, is giving way to a heightened sense of unity and a willing involvement in mankind.

In The Great Enterprise Harry Overstreet lists three emerging agreements among men that augur well for our beleaguered world.

1. Men are reaching agreement that the human race must learn how to live together or it will destroy itself. This represents a new cultural outlook, being so different from the nationalism of the past. There is a “wisdom concerning danger” that makes it easier for us to find ways of getting along with each other. “We must learn or else . . . “ Surely this emerging agreement prepares the soil for seeds of Christian union.

2. There is an increasing faith in a united mankind. “What is man?” is a question that is now very close to all men. More faith in man is leading to a reappraisal of war as a workable recourse in international disputes. More and more war is coming to be viewed as stupid, infantile, and irrelevant. The “glory of war” is losing its appeal even with the young and venturous.

3. There is more agreement in the western world that democracy needs to achieve positive and constructive goals. We must be a culture with abiding values, that is for something rather than simply against Communism.

That these emerging agreements are related to religion is suggested by the eagerness of churches to get together. Several of the denominations have succeeded in joining forces within the past decade. Almost all others are at least considering a merger. Just as men generally feel an urgency to join hands during these days of crisis, the churches are working toward oneness with a new concern. Even Pope John and Archbishop Fisher are talking unity!

What is the mission of a Restorationist in our world of crisis? May we not conclude that Paul’s “Buy up the opportunities” was never more relevant. May we suggest four or five essentials for those who make up the Restoration Movement.

1. We must gain greater insights through more involvement in “the Christian World.”

We have been far too exclusive, especially in recent decades. This is due in part to the proud notion that we are the only Christians. It is imperative that we return to the plea of the Restoration pioneers and represent ourselves as “Christians only” rather than the only Christians. “The Christian World” is made up of all those who are in Christ, wherever they may be or however they may be tragically divided. The Bible is translated into thousands of tongues and dialects, and it has been very widely distributed. Whenever one reads the Book and is led to believe and obey the Christ, he becomes a child of God. There is no way of knowing the population of the Christian World. It is enough for us to be concerned for it and to work for its oneness.

The Restorationist must reach out beyond his own immediate context and “join the human race” by becoming warmly concerned for any and all sincere efforts to create a better world, especially should he have a prayerful concern for all Christian endeavor. His attitude toward the phenomenal work of the American Bible Society should be positive. He should also take a long look at the National Council of Churches and the World Council. There are now 179 communions within Christendom that make up that organization. This winter there may be the interesting additions of the Pentecostal Church of Chile and the Russian Orthodox Church. While a Restorationist may well have his reservations about the World Council moving anywhere near the ideal of unity prayed for by Jesus in John 17, he will nonetheless be concerned that the very issues that lie close to his own heart are being discussed on an international level in the World Council.

By the principle of “insight through involvement” we can move toward unity within the disciple brotherhood itself. It is ironic that the very people that owe their existence to the plea for unity have divided more than any other religious community, while those they have sought to unite have been the ones to create mergers among churches. Even though we are divided twelve or fifteen different ways, there has been very little effort through the years towards internal unity. We have not yet reached the place where we can have dialogue between dissenting groups.

Premillennialists need to be with amillennialists more, while amillennialists need to listen quietly to the premillennial point of view. So with the “organic” and “inorganic” groups, Sunday School and non-Sunday School, Independents and Cooperatives, and on and on. This is to say that involvement in the Christian world should begin at home. We need to have unity meetings among ourselves, not for the sake of debate, but in order to get acquainted, and for the sake of involvement. We are brothers! We will not become a unity movement of any consequence within the church at large until our own sense of brotherhood draws us together.

2. We must restore the “sweet communion” of Christian fellowship.

A recent edition of a “Church of Christ” journal was pointing out that brethren did not draw the line of fellowship over orphan homes, but did do so over missionary societies. Then followed a discussion as to whether these are parallel. Both sides are in agreement that the missionary societies cannot be fellowshipped. By looking into enough of our papers one can find this kind of talk about all sorts of things — the cooperating church, Sunday School organizations, Bible colleges, individual communion cups, instrumental music, unfermented grape juice. These things serve as barriers to Christian fellowship.

We have permitted things to invalidate Christian communion. But fellowship is between persons, and this is determined by one’s own relationship to the Christ, not by how right he is in his interpretation of the Bible. “Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Once the proper relationship is sustained with God and Christ, we enjoy the true fellowship with all others who have a like relationship. “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Fellowship may be likened to the healing rays of the sun. Those who realize the need bask in the sunshine and enjoy its benefits. By virtue of a mutual relationship to the sun they have a mutual relationship with each other. So it is with “the sun of righteousness” and its healing effects. Those of us who are drawn to the Christ are consequently drawn to each other, regardless of our differences.

William Temple, former Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke along these lines to the Edinburgh Conference (which led to the World Council) in 1937:

It is only by coming closer to Him that we can come nearer to one another. . . We can help each other here, and learn one from another how to understand Him better. But it is towards Him that our eyes must be directed. Our discussion of our differences is a necessary preliminary and no more. Only when God has drawn us closer to Himself shall we be truly united together . . .

This unity does not consist in the agreement of our minds or the consent of our wills. It is founded in Jesus Christ Himself, Who lived, died and rose again to bring us to the Father. . . We pray that everywhere, in a world divided and perplexed, men may turn to Jesus Christ our Lord, Who makes us one in spite of our divisions. . . (Stephen Neill, Men of Unity, p. 88)

We are saying, as Archbishop Temple said, that fellowship is not ours to control. It is not for me to say who is and who is not in fellowship with me as a Christian, for this is determined by the person’s relationship to Jesus. The “sweet communion” of Christian fellowship is enjoyed when proper emphasis is placed upon the drawing power of God. If you and I are drawn to our Lord by his love, mercy, and goodness, then we are in fellowship with each other. The more closely we are drawn, the sweeter will be the joy of fellowship.

3. We must give more attention to primary truths and less attention to secondary truths, or we must learn to put first things first.

“Secondary truths” may not be as expressive of what I mean as truths of secondary importance. In times of crisis there are surely those “things that matter most” over against lesser truths. A barn may need a paint job, but it may be a better use of time to attend to the house that is on fire. In reading so-called “brotherhood journals” one gets the idea that the most urgent issues facing our generation are whether congregations can do their work through a sponsoring church, the place of orphanages, instrumental music, and open membership.

My own controversial career is witness to the fact that I believe any question related to the work and worship of the church has its measure of importance, and it surely has its place on the agenda of things to be considered. But all such questions should be made secondary to the vital issues that concern the survival of man. After all, it may take nothing less than a revitalized, united Church of God to save the human family from annihilation. In such a case the accent should be on the sovereignty of God, the love of Christ, the promise of the Holy Spirit, the church as the temple of God, and man as the image of God. One reason why so many of us know so little is that we have limited ourselves in curricular. Some among us become experts on “brotherhood issues,” but we are short on serious, painstaking biblical scholarship. Being so isolated from the ongoing world about us, including even the religious world, we have made very little contribution to scholarship. We know little because we have been content to stay within the periphery of small issues.

The consequence is that we oversimplify. We dispose of the problem of unity with the brush of the hand, for it is simply a matter of people becoming like ourselves. Even Restoration is no longer of vital concern, for we have already restored all that needs to be restored. We live in too small a world when we spend most of our time and talent on “tiddlywink” subjects.

4. We must become more conscious of the grace of God and less inclined toward legalism.

Recently at a “Church of Christ” near my home in Bethany, W. Va. I heard the minister of the congregation say, “I cannot be saved on Brother Jones’ righteousness, for he doesn’t have enough for both of us. I have to be saved by my own righteousness.” The good brother meant to be illustrating some truth no doubt, but, as I mentioned to my wife afterward, neither man can be saved even by his own righteousness. Brother Jones not only does not have some righteousness left over with which he might scotch the minister along, but he cannot be saved by his own righteousness.

I would that this case were exceptional, but I fear that it is not, for we are a people that believes very largely in a salvation by works, even though we adamantly deny it. We are not preachers of grace, for that is being too much like the sectarians. We are a little inclined to consider Eph. 2:8 (By grace you have been saved through faith) as a Baptist passage. Our stock and trade is to move on to verse 10 where reference is made to “good works.” Even though we give some place to Isaiah’s “Our righteousness is as filthy rags,” we seem to believe that man is saved by what he does. Mercy and Grace deserve a stronger position in our preaching and thinking. We are just barely within the evangelical tradition, and some would deny that we are within it at all, consigning us to the category of “a works church” along with Roman Catholicism. I think the charge is partly justifiable, but only partly.

By legalism I mean that we set up our own opinions and interpretations as conditions of fellowship. Instrumental music in worship, for example, is strictly a matter of one’s own interpretation, for the New Testament gives us no instruction on that subject. We rule on this question as if we had a “thus saith the Lord,” and we make anti-fellowship laws of our opinion. Indeed, we may have the right opinion (I for one think my non-instrumental music position is the right one), but we are legalistic when we lay down a law regarding a matter upon which the Bible does not legislate. The same is true regarding the millennial question. Opinions differ widely on this subject, which is understandable. The legalist is the man that treats his own interpretation as if it were the unquestioned, unmistakable word of God, and thus draws a line on the brother who does not see it his way. We must make more room for the grace of God in our thinking.

5. We must give up our Creed (which is unwritten, but real nonetheless) if we are to be leaders of Restoration thought.

Alexander Campbell once underscored this proposition : No human creed in Protestant christendom can be found that has not made a division for every generation of its existence. In commenting on this thesis he says: “But the Bible will do no better if men approach it with a set of opinions or a human symbol in their minds. For then it is not the Bible, but the opinions in the mind, that form the bond of union. Men, indeed, had better have a written than an unwritten standard of orthodoxy, if they will not abandon speculation and abstract notions, as any part of Christian Faith or duty.” (Christianity Restored, p. 105)

It is the unwritten creeds of the “Church of Christ” and other segments of discipledom that have kept us divided, just as Campbell said they would. It is better to have a written creed than an unwritten one! In the Declaration and Address the Campbells make it clear that it is the elevation of creeds to the level of infallible interpretation (that is, making the word of God) that they opposed. They did not object to creeds kept in their proper place.

The unwritten creed is more dangerous since it is less obviously the work of man. The Baptist Manual or the Methodist Discipline is so obviously the work of man that they are relatively harmless. An unwritten creed, how. ever, which is often formulated by those who sternly oppose written creeds, is much more subtle in that opinions are allowed to ride piggyback on the claim of “no creed but the Bible.” Opinions thus become infallible interpretations. The Bible becomes the word of God as interpreted by us, which is made as infallible as the Bible itself.

Our unwritten creed has come to include some rather novel interpretations: five acts of public worship, four steps to the plan of salvation, exclusive use of “Church of Christ” (I know of no congregation that wears any other name), reimmersion of those immersed by other communions, anti-instrumental music, anti-premillennial, overemphasis on “baptism for remission of sins” (other equally relevant biblical phrases on baptism are not creedalized), exclusivism (“Church of Christ” is the church and the only Christians), sectarian interpretation of many passages (the “Church of Christ” path through the Bible), church-centered instead of Christ-centered thinking, equivocation on gospel and doctrine (we make the entire New Testament the gospel), parochial school system, pastor system, infallible interpretation and practice.

These are the usuals or the essential characteristics of the modern “Church of Christ,” nearly all of which, incidentally, are subject to serious question. Nearly everything that is distinctive about the “Church of Christ” is difficult to defend in the light of the Bible. The most serious effect of this creedalism is that it de-christianizes much of Christendom. Nothing is so injurious to a people as for them to suppose that they are it, that they have all the truth, and are thus in a position to reject all others as Christians. It not only makes for arrogance and impedes real spiritual growth, but it cripples the plea for the unity of all Christians.

Our creedalism, therefore, must go. But it cannot go until we are willing to give up our opinions as infallibly correct and accept those as Christians that Jesus accepts. To reject a brother because he is a premillennialist is creedal and sectarian. We will overcome our unwritten creed when we make only those things conditions to fellowship that God has made conditions to going to heaven. — the Editor.