HOW WOULD YOU PLAN A UNITY MEETING?

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who are to believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.” (John 17:20-22)

Because of this tender prayer from the lips of our Lord, as well as for other good reasons, all of our people believe in unity. No one advocates that we should continue in our divided ways. It is agreed that something should be done. We all have to face the cold reality that we are a terribly divided brotherhood. Some of the estimates of our many divided segments among Churches of Christ-Christian Churches run as high as twenty-five.

Think of it, twenty-five divisions among the heirs of the Restoration Movement — a movement that emerged from a burning desire to unite all God’s people!

It may not be too much to say that we talk about unity more than any other people yet practice it the least. We are strong in denouncing division, but weak in correcting it even in our own ranks. We must confront the ugly fact that division is a work of the flesh. Gal. 5:19 begins with the sober words: “Now the works of the flesh are plain . . .” And the plain fact is that party spirit is listed as carnal along with idolatry and drunkenness. It is the party spirit, not the mere fact that we have differed in our beliefs, that has splintered us into so many factions.

But no one among us upholds the party spirit and no one would claim to be a party man, even though our divisions continue to be perpetuated. Indeed, new factions are presently being formed, adding even more confusion to an already fractured brotherhood. Yet we all go our separate ways, each of us vowing that unity is good and partyism is evil. We all agree that something should be done, but so very little is done.

A few of us here and there, representing many of the groups among Churches of Christ-Christian Churches, have sought action toward uniting our people in what has come to be called unity meetings, These gatherings have brought brethren together who had previously enjoyed almost no contact with each other. Men who could not “fellowship” each other to the extent of even calling on each other to lead a prayer were in these meetings not only praying and singing together but also listening to one another. Without even one exception these unity forums have been blessed with a fine manifestation of brotherly love. Brethren have proved to themselves that they can come together and discuss their differences without hard feelings resulting.

Unlike debates, which have proved to be an ineffective device in promoting better understanding, these fellowship forums have encouraged hundreds of us to treat each other as brothers. It is one thing to acknowledge a man to be a brother or even to call him brother, but something else to treat him as a brother. These gatherings give us opportunity to treat each other as brothers.

In the unity meeting in Dallas, for instance, a number of brethren that we call “premillennialists” were present, representing a segment of some 150 congregations that are virtually shut off from all the other Churches of Christ because of our party ways. It was a new experience for these brethren to sing and pray and study with the “a-mills,” and especially to have opportunity to explain what the premillennial hope means to them and how it is related to unity and fellowship. We have fought each other over premillennialism for so long that it was refreshing to see brethren make an honest effort to understand a separated brother’s point of view.

At that same gathering there were the anti-Herald of Truth brethren and the pro-Herald of Truth, known variously as “the Guardian group” and “the liberals” or “the anti’s” and “institutional brethren.” These saints of God have only in recent years become separated, but even though they still call each other brethren, they have quit treating each other as such. Even though they arc brothers in Christ together, they cannot so much as speak to each other’s congregations (and often not even to each other) or even call on one another to pray to the heavenly Father. It was good for us all to see these brethren in the same building together!

There were still others at the Dallas meeting: both the conservative and liberal wings of the Christian Church; non-class elements; one-cup and cups brethren. To the one-cup element the “cups brethren” are those who do not have Sunday School (as they do not) but do use a plurality of cups. Those who have both Sunday School and plurality of cups they call “Sunday School brethren.” Well, whether that is clear to you or not, all these persuasions were represented, and they were all downright decent to each other.

At such unity gatherings as those at Dallas and Denver an effort was made not only to bring divided brethren together, but to discuss the differences and to explore the causes of our separation. Hours upon hours have been given in these meetings to such subjects as the nature of fellowship, the meaning of unity, the causes of our division, heresy, gospel and doctrine, baptism and fellowship, who is a Christian?, institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music. No subject is barred; no brother is denied opportunity to speak. The meetings are free and open, restricted only by time.

Nearly everyone, if not everyone, that has attended one of these efforts has hailed it as a good thing. Even those who came to scorn have remained to pray. Once a person sees the sweet reasonableness that nearly always prevails, and especially when he witnesses the oneness that obtains despite wide diversity of opinions, he cannot help viewing it as a constructive effort. It is difficult to argue against love and brotherhood.

Regardless of all this, and the picture drawn here is a fair representation, these unity meetings are adamantly opposed by most leading brethren in the Churches of Christ. Not only will they not attend or take part, they even discourage others from attending, and in some cases they apply pressure to make sure their people do not have anything to do with such gatherings. By means of both press and pulpit they are on record against these meetings. The reasons they give for their opposition are not always clear, and when they are clear they hardly seem valid in reference to the kind of unity effort we ask them to support.

Their objections are something like this: these unity meetings constitute a compromise with error and false doctrine; they “water down” doctrinal differences rather than dissolve them; they imply that we are to overlook doctrinal error and “fellowship” anybody and everybody, that doctrine is not important anyhow; these unity meetings call for a mere “union” of brethren who are in error, and they ask us to endorse things that are wrong so as to have fellowship with each other, which amounts to loyal brethren having to endorse sin and error.

The purpose of this article is not to examine with any detail such objections. It is enough to say that these evaluations are both untrue and unfair. One only needs to attend such unity efforts to see that such objections are wholly baseless.

The purpose here is to invite such brethren to present their plan for a unity meeting. We got up some meetings and invited them, so let them get up a meeting and invite us. Since they readily admit that brethren ought to unite, then what program do they offer towards solving our problems in long division.

If they object to such appellations as “unity meeting” or “fellowship forum,” what would they choose to call it? Whom would they invite? What procedure would be followed? What subjects would be discussed? How would the meeting be advertised? What would the purposes be?

Those of us who sponsored these unity meetings have been censured on all these points. Then let them show us a better way. We urge the editors of Gospel Guardian, Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate to present an editorial on “A Proposal for a Gathering of Our Divided Brotherhood” or some such title in which details are set forth as to what such a meeting would involve. We shall be glad to pass the editorial along to our own readers.

If there is an acceptable way to have a unity meeting, we want to know what it is. If some of us who have initiated these meetings are the wrong ones to be doing it, let that be pointed out. If our selection of subjects to be discussed have been the wrong ones, then tell us which ones would be acceptable.

Is it all right if our divided brethren come together simply to pray for unity and for each other, as did our Lord? May we sing with each other and talk with one another? Can we discuss our differences and seek to understand each other better? What? Where? How? Who? Since you don’t like the way we do it, and yet you admit that it is imperative that something be done to realize our Lord’s prayer, then you tell us a better way.

Until this is forthcoming is it unreasonable of us to ask that you take a more sympathetic look at what we are trying to do? — the Editor