REAL REASONS FOR DISUNITY
James Robert Ross

Since the Campbells we have blamed creeds, opinions, and errors in Christian doctrine for Christendom’s divisions. And it is true that they have contributed to division particularly by helping to crystalize doctrinal disagreements. However, they often are merely symptoms of the disease of division rather than the real causes. It is the purpose of this essay to examine some of the basic spiritual causes underlying the disgraceful. divided state of the church.

In the first place, disunity is related to a legalistic view of salvation. Legalism has a rather strict definition in traditional theological conversation, viz. the doctrine that one’s relationship with God is based upon obedience to law — any law, whether in the Old Testament, New Testament or denominational creed and handbook. Sometimes it is used to mean an acceptance of the authority of scripture, but that is not the case here.

Legalism in the first sense is the perverted gospel which Paul combats in the Galatian letter. His condemnation of a “different gospel, which is not another gospel” (Gal. 1:6, 7) has often been applied to various teachings on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the order of public worship. However, in the context of Paul’s letter the “different gospel” is the teaching that justification depends not only upon faith in Christ but upon circumcision and the commitment to the law which circumcision symbolizes (Gal. 3:1,2,11; 5:2-6).

Legalism, the judaizing heresy, was the greatest single cause of division in the church in its infant years according to the account we have in Acts and from what we learn from the letters of Paul. Circumcision as such is no longer an issue in the church, but the position that legal obedience is the foundation of our fellowship with God is still held and unfortunately is extensively taught in the churches of Christ, and it is still a major divisive influence.

Of course, no one openly preaches salvation by works. It works in a rather more subtle manner. It is said that God requires non-instrumental singing or weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper or an amillennial eschatology or individual, not congregational, support of orphans. If one is not obedient to these laws or doctrinal opinions, he is not a Christian. His salvation depends upon his keeping them or upon keeping some similar set of laws. The church must be split, if necessary, in order to keep itself pure of those who do not accept these laws as binding upon the Christian conscience.

Unity can only be realized when Christians have a renewed appreciation of the biblical emphasis of salvation by grace. If God receives both me and my brother by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, then we are obligated to receive one another on the same basis, grace. Both of us can likely see the other’s failings, and we will often disagree on the precise application of God’s will in our lives. But we can never use the other’s weakness as a pretense for breaking fellowship (Rom. 14).

A second fundamental reason for disunity is a confusion of Scripture and theology. A typical conversation with one of my brethren will illustrate this point.

Me:“My position of this doctrine is thus and thus. Scriptures No.1, 2, etc. seem to me to support this view.”

My Friend:“But the Bible plainly says: quote. . . unquote (book, chapter, and verse).”

Me:“But I think you are misinterpreting or misapplying that Scripture in this way, etc, etc.”

My Friend: “I am not interpreting at all. I simply speak where the Bible speaks. You are substituting interpretation for the Bible. If you would just accept the Bible, you would see your error.”

Me:“But I do believe the Bible.”

My Friend:“But you obviously don’t believe, because you have just disagreed with what the Bible says.”

I confess that I have never won such an argument. Moreover, I doubt that Socrates, Paul the Apostle, Alexander Campbell, or William Buckley could fare much better. You see, it is already assumed by my friend that his theology is equivalent with what the Bible says. If I disagree with him, I disagree with the Bible. My friend, in face, does not believe that he has a theology which is stamped with the marks of his historical and ecclesiastical background.

For reason of limitations of space I do not now belabor the point. I simply assume that the revelation of God in Christ witnessed by the apostles and prophets in Holy Writ is not identical with my apprehension of that revelation. On the other hand, one’s theology is inevitably developed with other than purely biblical elements. We must not only seek a correct grammatical and historical understanding of the Bible, but we must also relate this understanding to our personal lives and integrate it with all of our experience.

The idea that the Bible is the sole content of our theology is certainly not found in the Bible itself. There are many questions important to Christian faith which the Bible does not answer or which it answers only in terms of a foreign historical and cultural situation. For example, how often should the Lord’s Supper be observed? The Bible nowhere gives a clear, definitive answer. The New Testament tells us that on one occasion one group of Christians met to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). It also says that Other Christians “broke bread” daily from house to house (Acts 2:46). Nowhere does it either lay down a law for Eucharistic observance or formulate a principle of approved apostolic example. All such laws and hermeneutical principles are products of our personal theological ingenuity. We must consider the whole data of Scripture including not only the references to instances of observance of the Eucharist but the apostolic emphasis on the passion of Christ, its central place in faith and preaching, and relate all of this to the tradition of weekly observance which can be traced into the second century.

When we refuse to recognize the human, fallible elements in our particular style of Christian life, worship, and teaching, we tend to cut ourselves off from those who have developed different styles. One step toward unity is the humble recognition that we all stand under the judgment and the grace of God in Jesus Christ, whom we serve according to our best comprehension of his will.

A third and perhaps the most fundamental cause of disunity is carnal pride and envy. In the I Corinthian letter, which is often quoted in condemnation of denominationalism and division, Paul tells us why such divisions occur:“For whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not carnal, do you not walk after the manner of men?” (I Cor. 3:3).

The fallen, corrupt nature of man is the cause of disunity in the Church of Christ now as in the first century. One reason we have failed to see this is because we have often stressed the strictly personal virtues rather than the interpersonal and social virtues. Most of us hear frequent condemnation of fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, drunkenness, and revelings — and properly so since they are condemned in the New Testament as works of the flesh. But these seven works of the flesh fall into a more comprehensive list which also includes the following: “enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings” (Gal. 5:19-21).

As far as quantity of words is concerned, Paul devotes as much attention or more to the latter type of sin as to the first, not that any essential difference can be made. The point is that envy and party spirit are classified with fornication and drunkenness. And when we begin viewing divisions with the same horror as we now see drunken debauchery, we may hope for unity among God’s people. And let us not underestimate the seriousness of the problem. Paul plainly tells us “that they who practice such things (such things as strife and division) shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21b).

Some of my friends tell me that in matters of fellowship they wish to be on the “safe side.” By this they mean that they consider it spiritually risky to receive others as brothers when they may not be truly accepted by God as his children. I too wish to be on the safe side, but I have quite a different view of the risks involved in hyper-selectivity in matters of fellowship. What I most fear is that I may mistakenly or through ignorance cut off one of my brethren from the body of Christ into which Christ has placed him. I greatly fear having to explain to my Lord how I happened so to judge one of his little ones. If at twilight a storm is brewing and several children, including my own along with others, are playing in the yard, I much prefer to invite them all into the house to share its warmth and shelter until definite identification can be made as to which children are my own. That would appear to be not only the “safe course” but the only sane and loving course.

I have been accused of being wishy-washy or uncommitted in my personal convictions when I openly seek to enjoy the fellowship of Christians who sing with a piano or who have a different theology of baptism. (actually I am afraid that I am rather dogmatic in my opinions.) The reason I wish to have fellowship with my brethren — or rather, enjoy the fellowship created by the Spirit of God — is because of my deep conviction that it is vital to the Christian life. It is not an optional matter, a kind of silly flirtation. Not at all. If you are my brother, the Spirit of God has baptized us into one family, and I must, if I would be faithful to the Spirit, deny my personal sectarian jealousies in order to seek our mutual peace and growth in Christ.

And this brings us to an excellent stopping point. The fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, meekness, self-control is in sharp contrast to the works of the flesh listed above. And if carnality causes disunity, only the Holy Spirit can produce unity. It is no accident that brethren who are doing the most to seek the peace of Zion are also reminding us of the importance of the Spirit filled, Spirit motivated life. Only as we come to a deep appreciation of the Spirit’s presence in the church will we find the unity which He alone gives, a unity which we are enjoined to keep until we all attain to the unity of the faith (Eph. 4:3, 13). — Campus Minister, Eastern Illinois University, Box 172, Charleston, Illinois 61920.