Principles of Unity and Fellowship . . .

PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY

The point of this essay is that believers can and should be united upon the basis of universally accepted truths and these alone. It is the opposite of a parochial or provincial unity, which is not unity at all, but conformity. The church could never, for example, be united upon the claims of the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, for these are accepted only by a very small minority of believers, and it is therefore parochial and provincial. To insist that brethren must speak in tongues to be a part of the fellowship is to demand something that but few believers through the centuries have experienced. It cannot therefore be part of "the catholic faith."

If we make anything a test of fellowship that cannot be rightly expected of the church around the world, in any circumstance and in any century, we violate the principle of universality or catholicity. If we could enter into a mythical time-tunnel and be transported to ages past and visit saints in the catacombs of Rome or in upper rooms in Asia or in private shacks in Africa, we would expect to find what C. S. Lewis calls mere Christianity or what our own pioneers called the ancient faith. It is the common faith, the universal faith that makes the church everywhere one. Only those things that we could expect to see in all these places and in all these ages can be made tests of fellowship.

Could we expect such believers universally to be wearing one particular name? Must the organization of the church be exactly the same? Must the order or "items of worship" be precisely like some of us have understood them to be? Must all these churches in all ages be a cappella in their singing, or must they have singing at all, even when it might be dangerous, such as in a catacomb?

In my philosophy classes we learn to talk about what Aristotle called essence, which is the "whatness" of a thing, that without which it would not be what it is. A knife, for example, loses its essence if it no longer cuts. The concept is helpful in reference to the "whatness" of the church. Whether in an upper room, a catacomb, or an elaborate edifice, there must be that which makes the church the church if indeed it is the church. We are saying that it is the essence of the faith or in being a Christian that we can make a test of fellowship. Aristotle would grant that a knife might have lots wrong with it and still be a knife, if it cuts. It might even be a very dull knife and still be a knife. But a "knife" with no blades could not be a knife.

So, what is a mere Christian or an essential Christian? Or what is the "whatness" or essence of the church, of whatever tongue or tribe or nation or age? The answer to these questions must also be the answer to what constitutes the basis of fellowship. Surely we have no right to require of any brother or sister what is not universally conceded to be essential to the Christian faith. Otherwise we become parochial in our demands and thus sectarian.

One of the most provocative stories in our own history is one that most of our people have never heard of. It was the first unity meeting following our separation from the Baptists, which began about 1830. The meeting was called by John T. Johnson in 1841, and the invitation was addressed to all Christians. Its real purpose was to make an overture for union with the Baptists, but the Baptists ignored the invitation, all except Dr. James Fishback. He and some 25 Disciple preachers, including Alexander Campbell, studied together the basis of Christian union. Campbell introduced a resolution on the unity of the church that was approved unanimously by an immense congregation. It was this resolution that gave significance to the occasion. How would it fare among the heirs of the Movement with which you are acquainted?

"Resolved, That the union of Christians can be scripturally effected by requiring a practical acknowledgement of such articles of belief and such rules of piety and morality as are admitted by all Christian denominations."

This resolution is another way of referring to the principle of universality. There is that central core of the Christian faith, to which all believers assent, and it is that core, and only that, that is the basis for the oneness of the church. Our opinions and interpretations, and our own peculiar doctrines and practices, will he a matter of forbearance and liberty, and they will not be imposed upon others or made tests of communion. Because of these differences in doctrine and in practice some believers may prefer to be apart from others and "do their own thing" (such as being charismatic), and, while this may not he ideal, the church will still be one in that such brethren will not consider themselves the only Christians but will reach out in love and accept all believers as their brothers and sisters. In spite of their charismatic preference, or whatever peculiarity it may be, they readily acknowledge that it is not essential to the catholic faith.

Indeed, it could well be argued that this spirit of forbearance is part of the essential core. It is imperative that we grant liberty of conscience to each other, and the right of private judgment. Otherwise we invite partyism, where the individual conscience is dictated to and where the free spirit of man is not allowed to grow up in Christ according to its own uniqueness. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Without this liberty there cannot be a growing, dynamic, loving relationship between believers and therefore no true Body of Christ. A dictatorial, arbitrary, dogmatic spirit may prevail in a sect, but not in Jesus.

That Campbell's resolution to unite the church upon universally accepted truths is the only practical solution is evident enough. It is folly to suppose that believers everywhere would unite upon any particular set of opinions or system of doctrines. The Mormons know that all believers generally will not accept their peculiar doctrines, so they must "convert" those they can and maintain a sect within the church at large. So it is with all sects. We are hopelessly and eternally divided if unity can come only by one party persuading all the others to conform to its own peculiarities.

When Campbell proposed his resolution for unity it was assented to by everyone in the large audience. The reason is simple. There is no other possible way for believers to be united—except to unite upon what nearly everyone agrees to! Our pioneers did not follow the spirit of this resolution as they might have, for they came not only to insist upon an acceptance of the ancient gospel, where there was and is virtual unanimity, but also the ancient order, where there was and always will be differences of opinion. The gospel is a matter of facts, which one believes or disbelieves. Opinions are inappropriate. But the ancient order, which is a reference to the organization, work, and worship of the church, lends itself to varying interpretations.

Robert Richardson, who may well be the best interpreter of the principles of reformation as introduced by our forebears, remained true to the spirit of Campbell's resolution for unity. In his series on the Reformation in the Millennial Harbinger in 1841, he wrote: "Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it—A generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union."

This is brilliantly concise and beautiful in meaning. He is saying that the purpose of their efforts was to unite Christians on the basis of a catholic or universal faith. He goes on to say that it is "the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace."

Isaac Errett, who wrote for Campbell in the Harbinger and afterwards founded the Christian Standard, summarized this concept even more succinctly. What is the basis of fellowship between believers? Christian character, he said. That which really brings people together in love and peace is that they share the likeness of Jesus. Errett would no doubt say that he is presuming that such ones are baptized believers. But it is not simply that people are baptized, but that they are like Jesus, that makes fellowship meaningful.

It is with this point of commonality that we can begin in identifying the catholic faith in all the world and in all ages. When people trust in Jesus as the living Christ and yield their hearts to him as the Lord of their lives, they are truly his disciples. Wherever we find this precious faith we find the church. Along with Errett, we say this implies that they have been initiated into the Body by baptism even if not yet by immersion. While immersion is universally acceded to as scriptural, there are multitudes of believers, who manifest the Christ-like character, who are not yet persuaded that the scriptures decree immersion exclusively.

We should therefore declare ourselves one in Christ, and thus affirm with Thomas Campbell that the church is already one and cannot be other than one, with all those everywhere who make up the community of believers wherever they meet. And they will be an assembling community, gathering in the name of Christ. That is a universal. They may be burdened with some sectarian names (like a lot of the rest of us!) and they may not practice the ancient order as we understand it, such as breaking bread each first day, but they are the Body of Christ if they are baptized believers.

In our own congregations we can bear a loving witness to "No creed but Christ" (including unwritten creeds!), to baptism by immersion, to the place of the Supper and the Lord's day, to being "Christians only," even to a cappella music if we choose, to the rule of elders, to congregational autonomy, and on and on, in view of our own interpretation of scripture, which may well be right. But we cannot make these universals. We can hold them forth as the true doctrine of Christ, but we cannot impose them upon others except as they come to see them as we do. But everywhere and in whatever age we can expect certain universal manifestations of the faith if there is really a Christian church, and that is the one faith, a loving trust in Jesus and the likeness of Christ in their lives; one initiation or baptism into the community of believers; one Body, a congregation of believers meeting in his name and making a sincere effort to do his will in their lives and in their assembly. These summarize the seven unities of Ephesians 4.

Like Aristotle's dull knife that is nonetheless a knife, these people, despite whatever shortcomings they may have, are Christians since the ancient faith burns in their hearts and they constitute God's community on earth. They are our brothers and sisters, the world over, and that, and only that, can be the ground of our unity.

If we impose our own interpretations and order, which we may rightly treasure as the true teaching of scripture, upon those who have not yet grown to the maturity that we presume we have, and refuse to accept them as the Body of Christ along with ourselves, we become guilty of the great sin of apostate Christianity. It is the sin of being parochial and sectarian instead of catholic and universal. It is the sin of the great Roman system and Protestantism alike. We move above it when we recognize that the Church of Christ is out there in our world, scattered and divided as it may be, and made up of all those in every place who profess their faith in Christ and obey him in all things according to their understanding.

Finally, to quote Richardson again, "That alone which saves men can unite them." This is the principle of universality expressed in motto form. If we will heed its wisdom, we can help in bringing a bright, new day to our own people and to the church everywhere. —the Editor.