The Word Abused . . .

“CAN TWO WALK TOGETHER EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?”

A few times that I have arrived at an airport in some highly congested situation, such as JFK International in New York, or some very remote and obscure terminal, such as Marion, Illinois, and met a brother, perhaps for the first time, I have quoted to him Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” Then I add that it is just as well that that verse be used correctly once in awhile!

That use of the text gets much closer to what the prophet was talking about than the abuse it takes at the hands of some clergy who have party interests to protect, as well as less informed people who simply do not know what they are saying. When I fly from Ireland to New York and worm my way through customs and out into a foyer as large as a football field, packed with people from all over the world, and there meet a brother from upstate New York who has come to fetch me away, there can be but one answer: it was according to plan. We didn’t just happen to meet like that!

Or I fly into Atlanta, St. Louis, or Chicago and change to a 10-seat puddle jumper that bounces me through the clouds (or more likely far below them) to a little airport out in a rural area. Only one or two of us get off. Walking into the small terminal with but a few people around, I see an inquisitive middle-aged couple, up to the airport from down country for the first time in years, who look for the world like they might be subscribers to Restoration Review. “You must be Leroy Garrett,” they say, “we expected you to be fat.” I retort, “How do you expect me to be fat running from folks all my life?” And now I have met a couple that I’ve been writing to for years. I walk from the terminal thinking about, or perhaps quoting, Amos 3:3: “Do two walk together (or three!), unless they have made an appointment?”, using the Revised Standard this time.

There is only one possible answer as to why people meet in such unlikely situations. They have made an appointment; they had it all planned beforehand. That really is about all there is to Amos 3:3. There is no big deal about the passage, and one is left to wonder how it ever came to be used by many in the Church of Christ to teach that believers cannot be united unless they come to agree on everything.

The old rule of interpretation that one should see the text in the light of its context certainly applies in this case. Amos 3:3-8 is an extended cause and effect kind of argument that concludes with, “The Lord has spoken, who can but prophesy?” The cause is “The Lord has spoken,” and the effect is “I (Amos) can but prophesy.”

There are several cause-and-effect steps to the argument:

Verse 4 - The lion roared (effect) because he has a prey (cause).

Verse 5 - A bird falls (effect) because a trap was set for it (cause), and a trap springs up from the ground (effect) because it has caught something (cause).

Verse 6 - The people of a city are frightened (effect) because the war trumpet has sounded (cause). If evil has befallen a city (effect), it is because the Lord has done it (cause).

Verse 7 - A person is fearful (effect) because a lion roars (cause).

The verse in question is the first of these cause-and-effect steps. Two men walk together (effect) because they have made an appointment — or because they have agreed to meet (cause).

The point being made is that Amos, only a herdsman and farmer, is prophesying (effect) because he has a very good reason —the Lord has spoken, calling him as a prophet (cause). If one can understand that two men will not be meeting in a remote airport terminal unless they have made arrangements, then he should be able to understand that Amos would not be prophesying if the Lord had not called him. A lion does not roar for no reason, nor are people frightened without a cause. Since I am prophesying, it is because the Lord has called me. This is what Amos is saying.

It is incredible that a misinterpretation could catch hold as this one has on Amos 3:3. One can hear it at college lectureships and from many pulpits, and he can read it in papers, books and church bulletins. “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” is made to teach that people cannot be together, united in Jesus, and enjoying the fellowship of the saints unless they be agreed on everything or most everything. One opposing societies or classes will insist that if he walks with a man, which is made to refer to fellowship, the two of them will have to agree on societies and classes. If one is a premillennialist and another is not, they can never “walk together” until they see the issue alike. If the other fellow has an organ or piano at his church, fellowship is impossible until he gives it up and comes over to our side, for we have to “be agreed” if we “walk together.” And there is no way, of course, for a Baptist and a member of the Church of Christ to share Jesus together since they are not “agreed” on all the points of doctrine.

One can only conclude that some dear soul back yonder, a debater or an editor perhaps, lifted that verse completely from its context and gave it this weird interpretation. It is rather easily memorized, and it makes a good argument for one who has already concluded that unity is dependent upon conformity. So it has lived on as part of our “stock in trade,” a prooftext that unity is contingent upon endorsement and approval. If you do not “agree” or approve or endorse a person’s position or practice, then unity and fellowship are impossible. Amos 3:3 says so!

But this is to brutalize the scriptures. So abusive is this that it not only neglects the context, but it is made to say the very opposite to what the scriptures really teach on agreement and unity. One only needs to think so as to realize that if this is what God means in Amos 3:3 —that men must conform to each other’s views in order to be united, then no two people would ever be in fellowship. If two people should happen to canvass each other’s positions and strike an agreement on all points, it would be a tenuous thing. They would have to “disfellowship” each other the moment some difference materialized. They would be obligated to think no new thoughts, read no new books, learn no new ideas —unless, that is, the man with whom he “walks” and “agrees” comes up with the exact views.

It is amazing that men will use the scriptures, abuse them that is, to defend their own sinful, divisive ways. They will thrust a brother from them, refusing to call him “brother” or to ask him to address the Father in prayer, quoting Amos 3:3 every step of the way.

The truth is that God’s people, in and out of the Bible, have disagreed about a lot of things and still walk together. Indeed, one is not going to walk with anybody unless it be someone with whom he disagrees on some things. It is silly to suggest that with all our diversity in degree of maturity, intellect, emotions, and circumstance of life, we can agree on everything or interpret the scriptures in precisely the same way.

Peter and Paul certainly did not agree on some rather crucial issues. Peter makes it clear that he not only did not always agree with Paul, but some of the time he couldn’t even understand him! (2 Peter 3:16). And what congregation in the New Testament was in perfect conformity to any other one?

Forbearance is a Christian virtue that was urged upon the primitive saints again and again, in such terms as “forbearing one another in love” (Eph. 4:2), which shows that differences sometimes ran deep. In a congregation where conformity is the rule there is nothing to forbear. Besides, our acceptance of one another is to be on a kind of “as is” basis, with all our foibles and hangups, for that was the ground on which Jesus received us —even while we were yet sinners. And so Ro. 15:7: “Receive one another, therefore, as Christ has received you, to the glory of God.” That chapter begins by urging: “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” The entire 14th chapter of Romans lays down principles whereby differences of opinion are to be handled in the congregation.

All this bugaboo about how wrong the “unity in diversity” concept is only reveals how men can be blinded by partyism. In the first place, any sane man who merely stops to think knows that there can be no unity except in diversity, for that is what unity means, whether in a family, a country or nature —it is a harmony of diverse parts. In the second place, any reasonable person knows that there is a lot of diversity in every congregation. The very ones who demand unity in conformity, which of course never has been and never can be, are in congregations where differences are as thick as lice in Egypt, whether it be on questions about marriage or war or Freemasonry or abortion or spiritual gifts or how to interpret countless scriptures.

Each of our parties circumvents all this by demanding conformity on “the doctrinal issues,” meaning of course the peculiar doctrinal stance of that particular sect. They might differ on what others divide over, while others differ on what they divide over, but they make sure that all others line up on what they call the issues or else. Quoting Amos 3:3 of course.

We all admit that there are those basics that we must all accept. This is why we all agree with the old slogan, “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.” The faith that we are all to agree on is a matter of facts of Jesus, not theories about every question that comes up about the work, worship and organization of the church. Those things fall within the category of opinion, and there is to be liberty, and this is why “unity in diversity” is the only thing that makes sense. It is the facts about Jesus —the facts are believed, the commands are obeyed, and the promises are accepted —that makes us one and unites us together in Christ. The disposition we make about instrumental music, supporting Herald of Truth, or forming agencies for the work of the church has nothing, but nothing, to do with our being in fellowship together with Christ. 1 Cor. 1:10 says that God calls us into the fellowship of his son. So it is not and cannot be determined by any kind of demand for conformity on this or that pet project or peeve of ours. Paul and Barnabas may have reached the place where they had to go their separate ways, because of their disagreement over Mark, but this did not in the slightest negate the common relationship they shared in Christ. Oh, yes, such conflicts may place stresses on the shared life (fellowship), just as a fuss between children in a family does, but it does not affect the reality of brotherhood itself.

And, yes, we may, for the time being, have to meet in separate houses because of our traditional hangups about organs, classes, cups, literature, tongues, or whatever. But it is imperative that we realize that we are all in Jesus together in spite of these differences; and because we are in Jesus together we are sons of God together and brothers. Thank God, we are brothers! We must accept each other as such even if we do meet separately.

One thing we can do now is to forget about that wildcat interpretation of Amos 3:3. An organic brother and an inorganic brother CAN walk together even if they don’t agree on that issue. And so with all the rest of the opinions that we have allowed to separate us.

“Can two walk together except they be agreed?” If that is answered in the light of its context, the answer has to be no, for two men will not meet for an appointment unless they have arranged for it. But if it is made to me art what Amos never dreamed of, that two men have to see eye-to-eye in matters of religion before they can associate with each other, the answer has to be yes, they can and do walk together in spite of differences. This does not mean of course that they either endorse or approve of any position they believe to be wrong.

This is what religion is all about. That we might be brothers together in a family, not puppets dangling in mock conformity upon a string.

“Contacting the Blood”

I have said many times that one has to hang around the Churches of Christ for a long time in order to understand it all. You sort of have to be “born into it” and “cut your teeth” on it or it is completely incomprehensible. Such as the preceding article. Surely it is only some of our folk who use Amos 3:3 like that. No one else would ever think of it! So it is with this expression that I’ve heard all my life, and I’ve “preached” it with as much fervor as the next guy. Contacting the blood. I can imagine some biblicist like William Barclay or John R. W. Stott puzzled as to what in the world such an expression might mean, for, after all, it is not in the Bible.

Most of the old-timers made the argument of how the sinner “contacts the blood,” and one can still hear it occasionally, especially in a treatment of Ro. 6. But the new-timers don’t preach like those old warriors did, which I think is more unfortunate than fortunate. At least they said something, and a lot of it was on target. And they can be forgiven for an occasional deduction that confuses an issue more than it enlightens.

And this is what it is, a deduction rather than an induction. With induction one draws no conclusion but what is inherent in the passage; the passage itself forces the conclusion. With deduction one has his premise already in hand and is using the passage to support it. When Alex Campbell was visiting in England, an Anglican priest rose to his feet on one occasion following one of Alex’s long presentations, and said something to the effect that Alexander Campbell was recovering for the church “the Baconian approach” to scripture, and that he wanted to commend it. This was the most unique thing about Campbell’s teaching, his inductive approach to scripture. Francis Bacon was known as “the father of induction” which made him one of the fathers of modern science, and Campbell, influenced by him, sought to interpret the scriptures with the same scientific method. That was what the Anglican was applauding. Bacon’s idea was: reach no conclusion but what the evidence forces upon you.

With a rule like that many, if not most, of our deductions will come upon hard times. This notion that we “contact the blood” in baptism is one of them. Ro. 6:3 says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” And the scriptures make it clear that Jesus shed his blood in his death. So, the deduction goes, we “contact the blood” in baptism.

This is a risky conclusion, a shaky deduction. The context does not encourage such a conclusion. Paul’s problem is that some of the believers wished to take advantage of God’s grace by continuing to live sinful lives. “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!” he says in verse I. Then by way of question he reminds them that in their baptism they were baptized into Jesus’ death. As he died, they died; as he was buried, they were buried; as he was raised, they were raised, so that “we might walk in newness of life.” It was the change of life, the new creation, that he was trying to get them to see. Baptism must make a difference. You died to something, to sin. Now you are to walk in a new life, not the old sinful one.

This would make “baptized into his death” refer more to suffering or the crucifixion of the old self, or a separation from the old life. Paul wants the Romans to realize that they were supposed to have died —died with Jesus and therefore to sin, baptized into his death. The new creation implied in baptism is his point.

“Contacting the blood” in baptism is not only an unscriptural term, but it is a misleading concept, if indeed it has any meaning at all. If blood is made to mean life, which would have scriptural ground, then it is downright erroneous to speak of “contacting the blood” in baptism. Life begins at the time of begettal, not at the time of birth. Baptism is a birth, not the beginning of life. “He that believes on the Son has eternal life,” Jn. 3:36 assures us, while 1 Jn. 5:1 tells us that the believer is begotten of God.

If “contacting the blood” is made to mean appropriating the death of Christ, then there is as much ground for relating this to faith, if not more so, than to baptism. There is no scripture that ties baptism to our Lord’s blood per se, while we do have Paul referring to “faith in his blood” in Ro. 3:25 and Peter writing of “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” as the means of being elected by the foreknowledge of God. So, if we are minded to come up with such a strange idea as “contacting the blood,” we would have to give it wider application than just to baptism.

But why must we get all entangled in verb age that is unscriptural to start with? We can talk about being saved by his blood, justified by his blood, redemption through his blood, and even communion with his blood, and still be within the province of scripture. And we can talk about being “baptized into his death,” and why can’t we leave it like that?

Only exaggerated notions of baptism lead us to speak of “contacting the blood in baptism.” There is still virtue in the old Restoration principle of calling Bible things by Bible names, and in couching our ideas in scriptural language. —the Editor