WHAT WE MEAN BY UNITY

It is an honor for me to take part in the forum with men who come from several different backgrounds of the Restoration Movement. Despite any differences there may be between us, I love these men and cherish them as my brothers in Christ, as I do all of you. I am thankful to God for each one of you, that you are willing to attend a meeting of this kind and make some contribution toward the fulfillment of the Lord’s prayer that his people be one. Our presence here today is a testimonial that we recognize that even though we have differences we are one body in Christ, and that there is but one brotherhood.

A meeting of this kind makes it appropriate that we state exactly what we mean by Christian unity, that we attempt a precise definition. Some seem to have the idea that forums of this kind imply that there is to be some measure of compromise of truth in order to achieve unity. Or they suppose that we are saying that differences are to be ignored, or error is to be overlooked, or doctrine is to be minimized. My understanding of unity in Christ implies none of these things, No one participating in these meetings is asked to compromise any truth he may have, and anyone who has attended these forums will testify that no effort is made to ignore our doctrinal differences. To the contrary there is free and open discussion on all relevant subjects, with no holds barred.

Our conviction is rather that there is a relationship between love, togetherness, mutual involvement, and unity. In passed decades we have had too little contact with each other, too little love, and far too much belligerence. These are efforts to reestablish lines of communication, to be together more, to discuss problems in an atmosphere of love. There is reason to believe that we will fall in love with each other if we give the Holy Spirit a chance to catch us together!

All this has to do with what we mean by unity. But let’s try a precise definition: Christian unity is that oneness that men experience together in Christ that transcends all differences of age, sex, race, color, opinion and temperament, and which makes possible the sharing of the common life in Jesus, which is the fellowship of the saints.

This implies that there is a relationship which men share as disciples of Christ, a relationship that breaks down all barriers that would keep them separated from each other. This is the force of Gal. 3:27-28: “As many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The point is that in Christ there is unity in diversity: whether black or white, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, right or wrong, we are one in Christ.

I trust the last point will not disturb you: that whether right or wrong there is still unity. This is the picture we get from the scriptures. To those very Galatians, who were so erroneous in some of their views that Paul refers to them as “Oh, you foolish Galatians,” he asserts that “You are all one in Christ Jesus.” And to the Corinthians, the congregation with many errors, Paul writes: “You are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” So it was with those grand apostles, Peter and Paul, who had such differences that they could well have begun separate churches. Paul says of Peter: “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned,” and Peter says of Paul that he wrote many things that are difficult to understand. But despite the problem of one being wrong and the other ambiguous they were brothers together in Christ.

It is important, therefore, that we recognize that unity is not the same thing as conformity. It is unlikely that either Peter or Paul conformed to the viewpoint of the other. Yet they were “like-minded” in that they loved and served Christ together. This is unity. So it was with the primitive congregations. Antioch was far from being like Jerusalem, and thank God for the difference! Ephesus was not like Rome, nor was Thessalonica like Corinth. Still they were one in Christ. The admonition to “Preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” was therefore consistent with the nature of primitive Christianity, which was united in its diversity. Conformity of opinion was never made a condition of fellowship.

There was error in all these churches, and Paul was adamant in his efforts to set things aright. But it is clear that, even while criticizing them in the things that were wrong, he regarded them all as his brothers and as one in Christ. Since they were “right” in what mattered most, their relationship to Christ, fellowship was a reality despite doctrinal shortcomings.

This shows that it is not so much a matter of whether a brother is “in error;’ for we are all “in error” in one way or another. It is the nature of the error that is important. If people are wrong in their relationship to Christ and are therefore not truly “in Christ,” then of course there can be no unity with such ones.

If the congregation at Jerusalem could have its liberals and conservatives, if Corinth could have those who ate meats sacrificed to idols and those who would not, and if Rome could have its carnivore and its vegetarians, all without a breach of fellowship, then why cannot we have our “organic” churches and our “inorganic” churches, our Sunday School churches and our non-Sunday School churches, our premill and amill, and all the rest, and still “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?”

It is as natural and inevitable that we see things differently as it is that we look different. What a drab existence it would be if we all looked alike! It would be equally unexciting if our interpretations and opinions were all the same, if we were but carbon copies of each other. The scriptures teach us’ that man sharpens man, just as iron sharpens iron. But sparks fly when things are sharpened, and we will never hone each other into the fine instruments that God wants us to be without a conflict of ideas.

We are a little inconsistent in our demand for conformity of viewpoint. In each segment of the brotherhood represented here today there are sharp differences of interpretation over such questions as marriage and divorce, participation in warfare, membership in the Masonic Lodge, dancing and card-playing, and back before the days of TV we had our arguments about the movies! If a congregation can have such differences as these and still be united, why must we divide over such questions as the millennium, how the Lord’s Supper is to be served, or whether a piano is used in the singing.

It is important to my thesis that a clear distinction be drawn between endorsement and fellowship. The honored brethren who are on this program hold positions that I do not endorse. Instrumental music is one of them. Programs that make for a clergy among us, such as the pastor system and the maintenance of seminaries, however disguised, are others. These practices are wrong, or at least they would be for me. While I do not endorse instrumental music or the pastor system, this in no wise effects the love that I have for my brothers who have these things, nor does it nullify the fellowship that we can enjoy together as brothers.

Once we see that unity and fellowship are possible even when there are practices that we cannot endorse, it will no longer be necessary for us to try to impose our own interpretations upon the other fellow, thus denying him of his liberty in Christ. One of the brothers who speaks on this program tomorrow night is a good illustration of this principle, for he holds a view that is different from all the rest of us. We all have a practice that he believes to be wrong in that we have a plurality of cups for the Lord’s Supper. He also holds the view that when the church assembles to study the word it should not fragment itself into classes, a position that is shared by the hundreds of main-line non-class churches that do have individual cups. So this represents a division among the non-class brethren, who number upwards of a thousand congregations among the non-instrument Churches of Christ.

So here is a brother representing a group among us that opposes something that all the rest of us practice, and he is willing to come among us and talk about the unity of the church. Our habit has been to dub a brother like this a fanatic when he opposes what we have, but when he practices what we oppose we call him a hobbyist. We should see the brother as a man for whom Christ died, and recognize that he is free in Christ to be different from ourselves. It is wrong for us to poke fun at these people when they choose to drink from one cup, such as to joke about how we try to find a seat on the front row when we happen to wander into such a church, lest we be contaminated with someone’s germs. Who among us supposes that Jesus would mind drinking after him? Maybe these brethren love one another so much that they don’t pay any mind to germs. And, besides, are they not right about our cups being a modern innovation?

We ought to be ashamed, quarreling as we have and poking fun at one another, shedding fratricidal blood, and wasting our time over peripheral issues while a troubled world lies fragmented before us. Whether one cup or many, we must learn to bear with each other, and refrain from imposing our views on one another. Preferences about cups and classes and all the rest may keep us in separate congregations, but that does not keep us from being a united people, enjoying fellowship together in the many areas where it can find expression.

We must all realize that those who differ with us are just as reasonable and intelligent as we are. They believe in the authority of the Bible just as we do, and they are certainly as conscientious as we are, and love Jesus just as we do. Awhile back I took a professor friend of mine of the non-instrument, Sunday School Church of Christ to meet two other professors at a restaurant in a Dallas hotel. It was apparent to him that these men, like himself, were responsible scholars in their respective fields, academic leaders, refined and cultured Christian gentlemen and Ph.D.’s. Once we were to ourselves again, he seemed surprised when I informed him that these men were of the non-class Church of Christ.

We must stop this talk about our differences being caused over whether one believes in the authority of the scriptures. All the men on this program believe in the authority of the Bible, as do the people they represent. Louis Cochran properly refers to us all in the Restoration Movement as Captives of the Word. The problem is not a question of who believes the Bible the most. The problem is that throughout most of our history as a people, which has brought division on top of division, we have insisted that the other fellow interpret the scriptures, which we all accept as authoritative, the same way we do. We have made our own opinions as to what the scriptures say about muted questions tests of fellowship.

You notice I said “muted questions.” Is it. not remarkable that all these things that separate us into 20-odd parties are matters upon which the scriptures are silent. What do the New Covenant scriptures say about instrumental music, pro or con? Or about classes, cups, colleges, literature, or how to serve the Supper or do missionary work? And how about questions of prophecy, military service, divorce, striking and demonstrating, etc. Is there not ground for honest differences of opinion in such matters, since the Bible says either nothing or very little about them?

The wise observation of Willis Whitney is appropriate here: “Men who know algebra never fight over an algebraic equation. It works or it doesn’t, and the most belligerent man bows his head before the correct answer. Men fight over what they do not know—misunderstandings—and never over what they do know.”

Unfortunately interpreting the Bible is very different from solving algebraic problems. Still there is that large area of biblical information concerning which there is little or no disagreement. It is the area of the known, the factual. It is our opinions—what we don’t know for sure—that we bind up on one another, thereby imposing a law that God never made and denying one of his freedom in Christ.

This means that we must not only interpret what the scriptures say, but the silence of the scriptures as well. The Bible is silent upon a thousand matters that relate to our life and work in the church. So how are we going to interpret the silence of the Bible?

Quite obviously there must be liberty if there is to be peace. Some of us are going to be strict-constructionists, seeing the Bible as a kind of blueprint. Such a one must wring from some nook or corner of the scriptures something that looks like the detail that he is searching for. If it is a question of where the church is to meet, he may come up with the view that it must be in an upper room. If it is how to do missionary work, then he finds some pattern of congregational cooperation, or by going another direction he finds justification for the idea that each congregation must remain independent in all such work. If it is how to select elders, he finds something somewhere that gibes with what seems appropriate. He manages to find book, chapter, and verse for his pragmatism!

Others of us will interpret scriptural silence less strictly, but we must show charity to our strict-constructionist brother and allow him his liberty in Christ. If he believes he should go upstairs to meet, then upstairs let him go. We might even go along with him sometime, just to show him how much we love him. But he too must reverence our freedom in Christ and allow us to meet downstairs or in a building of our own, even when he can’t conscientiously join us. But still we can work together for Jesus’ sake in helping the man out there who is in trouble, who may be black as well as poor, a Baptist as well as hungry.

We must have less name-calling and labeling of one another. The body of Christ need not have conservatives and liberals, loyal and disloyal, faithful and digressive, or those who accept the authority of the Bible and those who don’t. It is wise to note that a liberal is one who is more liberal than you are! Everyone here, I venture to say, is a liberal to somebody, somewhere.

My view of the nature of unity is that here in Lubbock we can have all groups of the Restoration Movement represented, with each doing the Lord’s work according to its own conscience, and still be a united people. We can recognize and treat each other as brothers, visit each other’s assemblies, occasionally exchange preachers, arrange joint meetings for the young people, visit in each other’s homes, and find ways to work together where no one is asked to compromise any conviction.

I am thankful that in some respects this is already the case right here in Lubbock. When the tornado struck this area a few weeks ago, the body of Christ in Lubbock arose to the occasion. When people are lying in the street injured and hundreds are homeless, things like cups and classes, millennial theories and Herald of Truth pro or con make little difference. Unity is a precious reality, like oil upon the beard of Aaron, when we work together in binding up the wounds of our fellow men. When we are all cut to the heart over suffering humanity and resolve to combine our resources and work together ro make men whole, then we will see fellowship in the light that God intended.

The young men who go from our various groups to battlefields across the sea sometimes have this experience, men who see children starving, men dying, land ravished, homes destroyed. When they are able to get together and take the Lord’s Supper in some bunker, they aren’t bothered about who has a piano in his church back home or whether somebody’s church contributes to Herald of Truth.

We must somehow get on the inside of this problem of the authority of the scriptures in relation to unity. When I was at Harvard, which will qualify as liberal in our circles, I would say, I was dubbed by my class-mates as “the conservative of the conservatives.” Later I was to be described in our brotherhood papers as some-thing of “a liberal of the liberals.” So it all depends on where one is standing as to what a label might mean. A Harvard professor onetime disturbed me with this statement: “Mr. Garrett, if you ever find anyone more conservative than yourself, you ought to examine his position.”

This is an appropriate challenge for those of us whose reference is the authority of the scriptures. Suppose, for instance, some brother asks you for the scriptural authority for a congregation owning real estate and maintaining a church plant. “I can read about ‘the church in thy house’,” he might say in defense of his house-church, “but I can’t find scripture for all your real estate holdings.” What would you say? You see, he is to your right, more conservative than you are. He points to the Bible for what he does, leaving you with the Bible’s silence. Does that mean he believes in the authority of the scriptures more than you do?

Suppose a brother has foot-washing in his church, and he refers to John 13 where there is both a command and an example for such a practice. He reads where Jesus says: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” He does that. You don’t. Does he have the right to say you don’t accept the authority of the scriptures? On this subject the Bible is not silent at all, but we manage to interpret in such a way as to satisfy our practice. So who is the liberal and who believes in the authority of the scriptures?

So our problem is not a question of who loves Jesus the most, or who honors truth more, or who has greater respect for the Bible. It is a question as to who is to be the final arbiter in matters of interpretation. The assertion that “The Bible means what it says” helps none at all, for each of us has his own idea as to what the Bible says, or does not say. So, who is to be the Supreme Court in matters of biblical interpretation? Shall we leave it to Abilene or Amarillo, Lufkin or Nashville?

The final arbiter in matters upon which we differ must be each man’s conscience before God. This is where the Bible places it: “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4). The Bible is the authority, yes, but each man must decide for himself what God is saying to him through scripture. This reduces the matter to his own conscience as the Supreme Court.

There is no other way to resolve our differences than to accept each other through love as we are, with our differences. So I accept each of you as my brothers, not because we see eye-to-eye on everything in the Bible, but because you are in Christ. If Paul could resolve the differences in the church at Rome with a “To each his own” approach, then so can we. Then once we accept each other with our differences, we will then be in a better position to talk out any of the problems that place a strain upon the fellowship.

Let’s not wait until we are agreed on everything before we get together. Let’s get together and declare that the church is one, and in that spirit of fellowship we can try to work out the differences.

In our study of the nature of unity we must realize that unity is not man’s work at all, whether by ecumenical councils or papal decrees or by meetings like this; but it is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We can only hope that in such efforts as these God’s Spirit will use us as a healing hand to restore health to our fragmented brotherhood. But it must be his creation, not our genius.

We must also see unity as a means to something beyond rather than as an end in itself. “I pray that they may all be one,” prayed the Master, “so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” If the world is to be won, then we must be one.

There may be mystery to the oneness for which Christ prayed, but it is a mystery that we experience in other ways, such as in marriage. The marital bond is not predicated upon conformity of viewpoint. None of us could enjoy fellowship with his own wife if it were dependent on seeing everything alike. Marriage is one of those miracles of unity in diversity, as is all nature.

So it is with the family into which we are born. We do not choose our brothers and sisters. We take what the Lord gives us and go on the best we can. Those of us who come from big families know that the differences usually outnumber the agreements and that quarrels are commonplace. But that doesn’t break up the family nor destroy brotherhood. It is love that holds us together and makes us one. It is when love fails that separations come. There isn’t a married couple in this building that could not start divorce proceedings tomorrow if they wanted to, for they could find enough differences. It is love that keeps people married just as it is love that makes God’s people stay together. It is when they quit loving that they start dividing.

Unity and love are thus irrevocably tied together. They are twin gifts of the Holy Spirit. When we allow God’s love to be poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, the task of preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace will take care of itself. When love once more rules our hearts and minds, when Jesus is enthroned rather than our sectarian pride, then we will “with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6) and thus be a blessing to the world.

(This essay was prepared for the Fifth Annual Unity Forum, Lubbock, Texas, July 2-4, 1970.)