A UNITY PLEA SPELLED OUT

A few of our readers have written to us to the effect that our statements on fellowship, brotherhood, and unity are vague and unclear. For instance, what do we mean when we say that the Lordship of Christ is the only basis of fellowship? What does this lordship entail? And what do we mean by saying that it is the Person of Christ that is the pattern rather than a book? If we reject the idea that we have a minute and detailed pattern in the New Testament scriptures for the work and worship of the church, then what is the criterion for the modern ecclesia? And just what is the place of the Bible in all this?

Moreover, we are asked about the nature of the united church that we envisage. If we base brotherhood simply upon the profession that “Jesus is Lord,” what kind of church will result from such a plea?

These are important questions, and we wish to deal with them as briefly and pointedly as possible, trusting that we might avoid vagueness.

By accepting the Lordship of Christ we mean what Paul meant in Rom. 10:9-10: “If on your lips is the confession, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and in your heart the faith that God raised him from the dead, then you will find salvation. For the faith that leads to righteousness is in the heart, and the confession that leads to salvation is upon the lips.” And we mean what Peter meant in Acts 2:36: “Let all Israel then accept as certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

The point of Jesus’ lordship in our lives is best made by Peter: “Have no fear of them: do not be perturbed, but hold the Lord Christ in reverence in your hearts”. (1 Pet. 3:15)

Surely every person who reverences the Christ in his heart as Lord is my brother. He who professes the Christ as Lord is a Christian. Is this not what Christian means? Peter tells us that God made Jesus both the Lord and the Christ. It is not enough simply to acknowledge the messiahship of Jesus, for he must also be the Lord of one’s heart. The Christian is the person in whose life Jesus rules as Lord.

The question that invariably arises among our people in this regard is: doesn’t one have to be immersed to be a Christian?

The question is difficult due to the fact that many unimmersed people are surely among those who reverence Christ in their hearts as Lord.” It appears safe to assume that such was not the case in the primitive ecclesia, for there was then no confusion as to either the purpose or the nature of baptism. All who professed the Christ as Lord were immersed believers. In our time this matter is confused by widespread misunderstanding and disagreement about baptism. Many who love Jesus and honor him as the Lord of their lives assume that they have been properly baptized who have not been immersed.

I regret that I am unable to be as certain on this matter as so many of our people are. Maybe it is vagueness, or it may be simply that I do not know as much as they, or it may be both. But I do not feel comfortable with the view that one who accepts Jesus as Lord of his life, and who lives that kind of life by bearing spiritual fruit, is not a Christian because he has not been immersed. There is, of course, quite obviously no question involved if one rejects anything taught by the Master, for that is not living under his Lordship. Neither is there any question that one who loves Jesus will obey him in all things according to his understanding, and that he will be immersed when he comes to understand that this is the Master’s will for him.

But I suppose that the point is not yet clear. Some of my readers wish to press the point, which is perfectly all right, and so they ask: “Come now and make it clear, do you consider the devout Presbyterian elder, who has only been baptized by sprinkling, your brother in Christ; and would you accept him into the fellowship of your congregation?”

Yes, I consider him my brother in Christ, though I acknowledge that his obedience has not yet been perfected, which I assume will be the case when he comes to greater understanding. And I would certainly consider it my duty to share with him in the search for such light. But in the meantime I would accept him and treat him as a brother.

No, I would not accept him in any public way as a member of my congregation, were I am overseer in that congregation, until his obedience were perfected in immersion, according to scriptural teaching. I would explain the matter to him kindly, and I would urge the members to treat him as one who loves the same Lord. But because of my respect for what I believe to be clear teaching regarding the conditions for membership in a corporate body of saints, I could not conscientiously accept the unimmersed. As for his breaking bread with the congregation, I would prefer to leave that decision with him. I certainly would not debar him; neither would I discourage him.

You say now that I am inconsistent, for I will acknowledge the pious unimmersed as brothers in Christ and yet not accept them into a congregation of saints. Perhaps so, though I think there is an importance difference which I will not expand upon just now. I may be inconsistent (like Emerson I’m not overly concerned about trying to be consistent all the time) but at least I’m not vague this time!

As for the Christ being the pattern for the child of God instead of a book, meaning the Bible of course, I mean what Peter meant when he wrote: “To that you were called, because Christ suffered on your behalf, and thereby left you an example (pattern); it is for you to follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). The Christian’s pattern is the Christ! We are to follow in his steps.

We are told that we have to have the New Testament scriptures in order to follow the Christ, and that they are therefore the pattern. But those to whom Peter wrote had very little of the book we call the New Testament, if any at all. They had the image of the Christ before them, and Peter sought to tell them more about him (“He committed no sin, he was convicted of no falsehood; when he was abused he did not retort with abuse, when he suffered he uttered no threats, but committed his cause to the one who judges justly”), but it was always Jesus who was the pattern.

Lest we forget, the primitive disciples enjoyed fellowship with each other long before there was a book called the New Testament. Then how can we say that the Bible is the basis of fellowship? I say it is a Person that is the ground of fellowship. I do not accept a man as a fellow saint because of how much he knows about the Bible, or how closely he agrees to my interpretation of it, or even on the basis of how definitively he has obeyed all the teachings of the Bible (which would have to be according to my interpretation of course!), but I accept him because of his love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christ’s love and acceptance of him.

What does this do to the Bible? Precisely nothing, for it remains what is has always been, but it might do havoc to some strange notions that some of us have long had about the Bible. The first thing to settle is whether or not the Bible makes any claims for itself as the pattern for Christian brotherhood. Let him who thinks it is a book that is the pattern, however minute and detailed, open his Bible to the place that indicates such. He will never do it, for it is not there. Then that is not the purpose of the Bible. Christians had their pattern long before there was the Bible as we know it and well before the New Testament scriptures were composed. Were they then without the pattern during the first few decades of Christianity?

If one wishes to say that the scriptures portray the Christian’s pattern by their wonderful insights into the character of Jesus, his disciples, and his church, then we could not agree more. This is precisely what the New Testament scriptures are. They are the products of the efforts to live for Christ. Certainly the questions and problems that emerged in the primitive church are of untold value to us in our efforts to love and to serve Jesus better. Bur this is a far cry from saying that the scriptures themselves are the pattern. It is this ill found premise that lies behind all our notions that we have to understand the Bible alike and be right on everything in order to be united.

What is the criterion for the modern ecclesia? Jesus is the criterion. The modern church is to be made up of people who are conformed to the image of the Christ. He is to live in them and they in him. When Jesus ascended to the Father, the Holy Spirit began his mission on earth in the hearts of the saints. Since the Spirit is leading the saints of God, and since he directed and inspired the apostles in their preaching and writings, it definitely follows that the scriptures have normative value to the church. By normative we mean there are commands, examples, problems, questions, and instructions given to individuals and congregations in a variety of situations that tend to provide a norm for procedure for our own peculiar situations. I say “tend” because no two situations are ever the same. For instance, Paul could have written First Corinthians only to the Corinthians and only at the time he did. That letter is not the pattern or even part of the pattern for any other congregation, either in Paul’s time or our own. And yet that letter is “normative” in that it provides guidelines, for our own work and worship. For instance, the principle of mutual ministry in congregational worship is clearly delineated in First Corinthians, which could cause us to ask some questions about our practice of a one-man ministry, though mutual edification might find expression in a much different way than it did at Corinth.

When we take all the New Testament scriptures in this way, the norms multiply until we feel that we can be reasonably sure about a few matters regarding the work, worship and government of the ecclesia. This does not mean, however, that the scriptures provide us with “a minute and detailed pattern” for the church. For the most part the guidelines are in a few broad areas which seem to restrict the areas into which we might move instead of precisely defining them. The government of the church is an instance. The scriptural norms would direct us away from an ecclesiastical hierarchy or popery, but how strictly defined is the government of a congregation? The primitive congregations appear to be not quite the same in this respect. This is equally true of worship. It is so infantile of us to suppose that the worship in our churches are exact reproductions of the primitive churches, which probably were not the same to begin with. And yet there are normative guidelines for Christian worship.

So, in the context in which I have just written, I would say the scriptures are authoritative for the modern church, though far-very far-from being a handbook of minutia.

What do we envisage in the united church? We may write at length on this another time, but let us say here that the unity of the saints would not necessarily call for any substantial changes insofar as externals are concerned. The Baptist Church would not have to close shop, though being “Baptists” would come to mean less and less to them until finally they might choose to just forget about such terminology. The Methodists would probably continue worshiping at the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterians and Lutherans would not necessarily discard all marks that distinguish them from others. The Christian Church and the Church of Christ would not be expected to join each other, not at the outset at least.

But all these groups could still be as one in the holy bond of Christian brotherhood, despite the external differences and even the annoying disagreements. The big difference would be that they would accept each other as brothers and treat each other as children of God in the same heavenly family. And that would make all the difference in the world. They would drop all creedal barriers, basing fellowship upon the Lordship of Christ and nothing else. The “Church of Christ” brother might be unhappy if he worshipped where an organ is used, and he might with good reason think it to be wrong (at least for him), but he would still cooperate with other Christians in those areas where conscience would permit, and he would of course accept all baptized believers as his brothers in Christ, dropping all the creedal barriers that the “Church of Christ” now has erected that keep Christians apart, whether it be on premillennialism, instrumental music, or cooperative enterprises.

We will all learn that we can be brothers together even when some of us believe that others of us are wrong about some things. We will learn that it is our love for the Christ that makes us brothers together, and that this is bigger than all the differences we can manufacture. And when that day comes we will be a united church even if we continue meeting in several different buildings in town. — The Editor