A MATTER OF TRUTH

We are grateful to Johnny Ramsey for a recent piece in Firm Foundation in which he makes some provocative remarks about truth as related to unity. He quotes from J. W. McGarvey, who in 1885 in the Old Paths Guide gave a motto for unity: Truth first, union afterward, and union only in the truth. These words were later reproduced in both the Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate, and brother Ramsey believes that they should be reechoed in these days of ecumenical concern.

Says our brother: “When brethren seem obsessed with reaching people instead of teaching them and impressing men instead of saving them, we stand in spiritual jeopardy. The Truth alone will make us free. Compromise, dialogue and the ecumenical atmosphere lend themselves to a watered-down, man-centered religion.”

It is disturbing to see brother Ramsey associate compromise with dialogue, and to suggest that ecumenicity is inimical to truth. Would it not be better to call for dialogue without compromise and ecumenicity that respects truth? As his statement stands he is on record as opposing both dialogue and ecumenicity. This is about like objecting to human procreation because some births are illegitimate.

Does brother Ramsey intend to say that he objects to dialogue? The term is defined to mean “two or more persons conversing and reasoning.” Are not the scriptures replete with admonitions that we talk over our differences and reason with each other in the presence of God? One of my favorites is Mal. 3:16: “Those who feared the Lord spoke with one another; the Lord heeded and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the Lord and thought on his name.”

Is this not dialogue?

If it is the wrong kind of dialogue to which brother Ramsey objects, let him say so. And even more, let him propose the kind of unity effort that he would consider to be in harmony with the truth. He might seek help on this from the editor that published his article, for he too is often critical of our various unity efforts. If the current unity meetings are not what they ought to be, then let brethren like Johnny Ramsey and Reuel Lemmons show us a better way. Let them conduct a forum that has the right “ecumenical atmosphere” and we will be glad to attend and see how it is done.

As for J. W. McGarvey’s slogan that calls for “Truth first, union afterward, and union only in the truth,” there is one big question to be asked-what is meant by the Truth?

Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), and to Pilate the Lord said: “I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37). He also said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

If this is what brother McGarvey meant by his reference to the truth—the truth of the gospel—then of course we accept his premise that the truth must be the basis of unity. But if he meant, or if brother Ramsey means, by the truth our particular interpretations of what the scriptures teach, we hasten to demur.

Many of our brethren, and I fear Johnny Ramsey is one of them, insist on including their own opinions about missionary societies and instrumental music in the truth, and thus reject the brother who does not accept their opinion. They assume that one denies the truth when he refuses their interpretation.

We must learn that one may be in Christ and therefore “living according to the truth” (1 John 1:6) and still hold views different from our own, whether having to do with prophecy, the method of serving the Supper, or the way to support missionaries.

There is an important difference between the Truth, which is the fact of Christ, and the many truths that make up the scriptures. If we must be agreed on all the truths or facts of scripture before unity is realized, then unity will forever elude us. Some things in scripture simply are not clear to us, such as the identity of the anti-christ, the unpardonable sin, and the abomination of desolation. Indeed, there is hardly a paragraph of scripture in which there is not reasonable grounds for differences of opinion. Perhaps the Lord so intended, for this makes for study and the stretching of the mind. Surely it is a fatal fallacy to assume that we must reach unanimity on everything in the Bible.

Then how much of it must we be agreed upon to achieve the oneness for which our Lord prayed? I am tempted to say none at all!, but that would be misunderstood. But in an important sense that is correct, for the disciples of Christ and the primitive congregations enjoyed unity before any of the New Testament scriptures were written. What made them one? Jesus the Christ! This is the Truth, which existed before the scriptures. The scriptures exalt and clarify that truth, but are not to be equated with it. The scriptures reveal the context in which God gave the Truth to the world, and in doing so conveys many truths or facts, but the scriptures are not the same as the Truth. When our Lord prayed to the Father: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17), He could nor of course have been referring to the New Covenant scriptures, for they had not yet been written. He was referring to His own entrance into history for man’s salvation, which was of course spoken of in the Old Covenant scriptures. Yet I am not implying that “thy word” in this instance would be restricted to the Old Testament.

To be more precise, therefore, I would say that for oneness in Christ to be possible we must together believe and respond to the Truth as revealed in scripture, which is to say that we must believe and obey the gospel. As for all the rest of scripture, there is good reason to suppose that in time, if we studied diligently together in a spirit of love, that we would reach substantial agreement on much of scripture. This is desirable, of course, but not necessary to unity. This points up a distinction we have long set forth in this journal: it is the gospel (kerugma) that is the basis of fellowship in Christ, not doctrine (didache) . This does not mean that doctrine is not important, for it is for our edification; it only means that it is not the basis of fellowship. Fellowship is centered in a Person, not in a Book. The Book may reveal the Person, but it is still the Person and not the Book that is the ground of fellowship. Just because the Book reveals the Person does not mean that fellowship is contingent upon people agreeing on everything in the Book.

It is indeed proper to love the Bible, but our exaltation of it sometimes borders on bibliolatry, which means worship of a book. In this same article brother Ramsey quotes a poem from George P. Morris (and I wonder if he accepts “the Truth” as brother Ramsey understands it), part of which reads:

The truest friend man ever knew,

Thy constancy I’ve tried;

When all were false, I found thee true,

My counselor and guide.

There may be poetic justification for this kind of devotion to a book, but when viewed critically one must say that this is what a disciple of Christ would be expected to say of his Lord. Speaking for myself, I don’t worship the Book. I don’t bow down to it or pray to it, nor do I call it “The truest friend man ever knew:’ I reserve all this for the Master.

May God hasten the day when we will speak more responsibly in reference to the truth. So long as “accepting the truth” is made equivalent to joining the Church of Christ and “departing from the truth” is made equal to leaving the Church of Christ we will only reveal our superficial understanding of the nature of truth. We would be surprised to learn that the very passage we have so long applied to others may even more appropriately be directed to ourselves:

You shall know the truth, and the truth shalt make you free.

Truth is like a torch; the more you shake it, the brighter it burns.