The Word Abused . . .

THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING

The entire verse in the King James reads: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10).

Does this passage enjoin believers to see everything in the Bible alike? Does it teach that we must see eye to eye on all points of doctrine, that there can be no honest differences of opinion?

This is what we are told. We must all speak the same thing! If we study prophecy in the Old Covenant scriptures, we must come up with identical positions. If one brother becomes premillennial as a result of his study, and another amillennial, this simply cannot be allowed, for they are not speaking the same thing. There are something like 125 Churches of Christ that are premillennial in persuasion. These churches are cut off from the rest for being in error. Since they do not “speak the same thing” they cannot be considered as in the fellowship.

There are something like 800 Churches of Christ that have made the Sunday School a similar kind of issue. Since we do not “speak the same thing” on this point, fellowship is presumed to be impossible. These same congregations have a sub-division over whether a plurality of cups may be used in serving the Supper. It is another violation of 1 Cor. 1:10, we are told.

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. We have to speak “the same thing” on whether congregations may cooperate and on what basis (A division has occurred in last two decades over the support of Herald of Truth TV/Radio). We have to speak “the same thing” on instrumental music, otherwise the division must continue another century. When we all accept instrumental music alike, or all become acappella (no nonsingers allowed!), then there can be unity and fellowship, for then we’ll all be speaking the same thing. That is what 1 Cor. 1:10 teaches, we are told.

We will only mention some other issues: the use of literature, grape juice or wine, societies and agencies to do missionary or educational work, the pastor system, military service, secret lodges, being “charismatic.” On all these issues, and many more (on everything, in fact!), we must all believe exactly the same way or else we cannot be one together in Christ.

Even though this is the doctrine of those who man the System, it is impossible for them to be consistent, for even those within a given party disagree with each other on numerous things. Those who reject their brothers who are instrumentalists will differ with each other on whether one can be a Mason or on marriage and divorce. The anti-Herald of Truth brothers may stand firmly together on that issue, but then debate each other over the legitimacy of Florida College, with no break in fellowship. We have “pros” aplenty and “antis” aplenty who line up against others in the Body over this or that issue, and then argue with each other over a dozen other differences. When it comes to the millennium, or the societies, or the Sunday School they will blast their brothers who differ with them with “We must all speak the same thing.” But within each of the parties that hard-line demand for conformity is greatly tempered. One has to conclude that 1 Cor. 1:10 is made to apply only to those items that are peculiar to a particular segment. You must speak the same thing about instrumental music, but not necessarily on believers serving in the military. You must be exactly alike on the issue of cups, but not necessarily on whether one can be a Mason.

The truth is that 1 Cor. 1:10, as abused in this manner, never has been, is not now, nor will it ever be consistently practiced by any believer. The reason is simple: it is impossible. You may as well talk about our cells or genes all being alike, or our fingerprints all being alike (the FBI would be disappointed). Men do not think exactly alike about anything, much less the Bible, and it is asinine to argue that the scriptures enjoin what is so obviously impossible. In their saner moments all our party leaders will grant that there may be some differences of opinion and that some allowance should be made for diversity. Such an admission is a repudiation of their interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:10, for if that verse means what they say, on what basis can they make exceptions to its application? If we have to see eye to eye on instrumental music in order to be united, why not on every other point as well? Those who allow for diversity in areas of “opinion” but insist on uniformity in areas of “faith” have to serve as judges over other men’s consciences by determining for everybody else precisely what points come under faith and which come under opinion. The truth is, what is a matter of opinion to one man is a matter of faith to the next, and vice versa. That leaves this abusive use of 1 Cor. 1:10, floundering in a sea of confusion, with nothing to hang on to. It comes to mean this: We have to see eye to eye on all those points my party determines to be matters of faith; in other areas there can be differences.

With each party within the Body there’ll be a different list as to what are matters of faith. Each demands that all the rest “line up” on its particular items, otherwise there can be no fellowship — quoting 1 Cor. 1:10 all the way. Things really go helter-skelter when something is shifted from a matter of opinion to a matter of faith, which frequently occurs. Our people had instrumental music here and there among the congregations for a full generation without any great fuss made over it either way. When some of our leaders shifted it from opinion to faith, which began to happen following Sand Creek in 1889, it then became something concerning which we had “to speak the same thing.” So with premillennialism. R. H. Boll had believed it for half a lifetime, even while serving as an editor of the Gospel Advocate, before it occurred to anyone that it was a matter of faith instead of opinion. Then 1 Cor. 1:10 came in handy. So, since the 1930’s we’ve all had “to speak the same thing” in interpreting Rev. 20 or we can’t be brothers in the fellowship of the Spirit!

The kind of uniformity insisted upon, which 1 Cor. 1:10 is suppose to teach, never has been in the church and never will be. The very apostle that penned those words was sometimes at variance with other apostles and his co-laborers. Gal. 2:6-8 shows that he and Peter had different ideas as well as different dispositions, and so God assigned them different ministries, though Paul finally rebukes Peter to his face (2:14). Peter finally writes of how he not only did not sometimes see eye to eye with Paul, but that oftentimes he found him hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:15). That is no way for a “loyal” preacher to talk, for it is all as plain as day. Even a fool cannot err therein! (I have that passage on my list of abused scriptures.) We are all to understand it alike, and thus speak the same thing, just as 1 Cor. 1:10 says!

Who can really believe that the primitive congregations were all alike, all practicing exactly the same thing? The evidence is to the contrary. The Body at Jerusalem was so closely tied to its Jewish context that it never really became truly catholic in either attitude or outreach. Antioch was a “liberal” congregation by comparison, with Jews and Gentiles sharing the intimacy of the table, really one in the Messiah together. Corinth was still different, out in the far reaches of the pagan world as it was. They even had tongue-speaking going on, which was almost certainly a rarity among the congregations. Rome was still different. So was Ephesus. They most certainly did not “speak the same thing” in any sense of doctrinal uniformity.

That very letter of 1 Corinthians shows that Paul could not have had sameness of viewpoint in mind. In chapter 8 he recognizes that some of them had “knowledge” about idols while others did not. In the early verses he states that he and other believers realize that an idol is nothing, and so whether meat has been sacrificed to an idol doesn’t matter. Then he says in verse 7: “However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak is defiled.”

Why doesn’t he tell those who did not have this “knowledge” to get with it and line up? He recognizes that such differences can and will exist. People are different, not only in temperament and background, but in their ability to make distinctions. He finally says, “If food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.” Here he recognizes an understandable difference in doctrine. He does not insist upon conformity. He rather insists that it is love, not knowledge, that builds up, and in that love brothers are to bear with each other. Unity in diversity! There is of course no other kind of unity, whether it be in a marriage, in a legislative body, or in a congregation.

1 Cor. 1:10 itself, once carefully viewed in context, reveals what the apostle really means. The phrase “speak the same thing” is placed over against “that there be no divisions among you.” The words “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” stand opposite to “there are contentions among you” (v. 11). The RSV has quarreling. They were quarreling over whose little schism was greatest, saying: “I belong to Paul” or “I belong to Cephas” or “I belong to Apollos” or “I belong to Christ.”

The apostle is saying that he wants them united rather than divided; he wants them at peace rather than at war with each other. Phillips renders it: “Speak with one voice, and not allow yourselves to be split up into parties.” They were to be in agreement (united) and not divided. Their one voice was to be faithfulness to Jesus, not loyalty to any mortal man, whether Paul or Cephus or Apollos. Since Christ is not divided, they are not to be divided.

The same thought is in Rom. 15:5-6: “May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That they were to be of “one voice” could not possibly mean that they were to see eye to eye on everything, for in the previous chapter he had enjoined them not to judge each other over the differences that existed between them, which the apostle readily allows.

A counselor might urge a quarreling married couple to “be united in the same mind and same judgment.” Only a fool would suppose he meant that they were to see everything exactly alike. They are to “speak the same thing” in bearing witness to the oneness and purpose of their marriage.

So it is in Paul’s urging the Corinthians to speak as of one mind. They are the Body of Christ, which cannot be divided, despite differences.

Another fallacy underlying this abuse of scripture is the assumption that uniformity of doctrine means unity in Christ. This would no more be the case than with a married couple that sees eye to eye on all subjects, assuming it to be possible. It is not that (a docile acceptance of each other’s views) that makes them one. It is their love, their common goals, their purpose in life, their sacrifices together. All this can be true of their marriage even though they see a lot of things differently. On the other hand, they may be like two peas in a pod, so identical to each other (they even get to where they look alike!) as to be as boring to each other as much as to everybody else — and yet not be truly one in their marriage.

You may find churches where everybody buckles under and accepts the party line with no variation. They are like the schoolteacher that went far back into the bushes for his first job. An illiterate board member asked him his position on the shape of the world, whether round or flat. “What’s the going opinion in these parts?” was his prudent reply. With enough browbeating people can be brought to some kind of blind conformity to each other’s views. But who says that this makes them any more united in Christ? People who are free to think, question, and differ are more likely to manifest the oneness that is in Jesus.

After all, that is what it is all about. The great miracle is that God has taken us all, so different in so many ways, and has moulded us into the likeness of Jesus, with each of us still his own unique self. “All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).

Our responsibility is to “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). You were not right about everything, nor were you in perfect agreement with your brothers and sisters, when Jesus received you. He took you in, however oddball you might be, and that because of his love for you. That is the basis upon which I am to take you in, on the basis of the gospel. If you accept Jesus as Lord and obey him in baptism, I am to receive you, warts and all. It matters not at all of how right or wrong you may be on instrumental music or what ever your hang up might be on Herald of Truth.

Thanks be to God that we do not have to see eye to eye on all these issues that we have used as excuses for being torn asunder into separate camps. But we are to speak the same thing in reference to the Lordship of Jesus — the one faith, the one Lord, the one baptism. If we have to wait for eye to eye conformity for the saints to be one, then they will never be one, perhaps not even in heaven itself. We can, nonetheless, accept each other as brothers and sisters on the ground that we are all God’s children. Whatever agreements His family should have will be cultivated only in an atmosphere of love and acceptance, never in a quagmire of threats and pressures. —the Editor.