TWO APPROACHES TO UNITY

After years of study in the history of unity efforts I conclude that there are two, and perhaps only two, approaches to the problem of a divided Church of Christ upon earth. It is well for all those that profess any interest in the unity of all believers to pause occasionally and examine the method they are using and judge it in terms of its effectiveness. These two methods may be identified as follows:

1. To restore the New Testament church in its pristine purity, thus demonstrating to divided Christendom what the true church really is, and invite others to do as we have done and thus become like ourselves. This method implies that the restored church would gradually absorb all other believers into its own fold, thus overcoming sectarianism and achieving unity. As for method, this approach implies an aloofness from other believers and a separation from all other churches. This approach could be called the separatist method, or the conformist method, or the restoration method.

2. To assume that the ideal, united church, the image of which we see reflected in Scripture, though perhaps not in exact terms, is yet to be realized upon this earth, the first century not excepted, and therefore all believers should cooperate with each other in the continual quest for truth and a united church. As for method, this approach calls for mutual acceptance of each other as equal Christians without necessarily approving of all that is believed or practiced, and cooperating with each other in all ways that are possible and appropriate.

The first method has very largely been the approach of “the Restoration Movement” in this country, especially of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, which historian A. T. DeGroot has been pleased to call Church of Christ Number One and Two.

De Groot argues that there is precedent for this device, for the Plymouth Brethren (a “restoration” church by the way) is divided eight ways and are so listed by the Census Bureau, i.e., Plymouth Brethren No. 1, No.2, and right on through Plymouth Brethren No.8. So, it may just as well to speak of Church of Christ No.1, No.2, etc., and one could come up with a list as long or longer than that of the Plymouth Brethren.

This spectacle of a supposed unity people dividing again and again should cause one to become very suspicious of the validity of the first approach to unity. Indeed, this very approach is itself divisive! When people adopt a rigid view of the restored church and presume that they are that one and only true church, it is only a matter of time until they will divide among themselves over some method or doctrine, thus adding to the list one more one and only true church.

The assumption of finality in restoration is the fallacy of approach number 1. Restoration must be seen as an ongoing task never fully realized this side of the millennium. We do restoration continually; it must not be something we have done. It should be a methodology and ideology that we adopt, realizing that other Christians are not convinced of this approach. In the search for truth we must come to share with others, conceding, that we have as much to learn as we have to teach. In the quest for the “one, holy, apostolic, catholic church” we must be persuaded that it is an ideal that no religious group has attained, or even all of them combined, and we need each other’s help in the mission.

To set ourselves apart and have no fellowship or cooperation with any other church is self-defeating in a unity mission, for how, pray tell me, can we unite with other believers when we have no contact with them? It assumes that we are the only Christians and that others only need to repent and be like us, while it is highly probable that there are others closer to Christ than we are. We should be eager to join hands with such ones in all ways possible, and surely we can do some things together. Just because we may not be able to do everything together should not mean that we can do nothing together.

The second approach was the approach of our pioneers, who, from their first churches cooperated with other churches, joining their associations and working with them in the publication and distribution of Scripture. Moreover, they were “Christians only,” never supposing that they were the only Christians. Their mission was to unite the Christians in all the sects, which itself recognized that there were other Christians. Nor did they suppose that they were the church to the exclusion of others, for they believed the church has always existed and that it is inviolably under God’s care and will never be destroyed.

The good sense of our pioneers, and the method they adopted, is reflected in this bit of wisdom from a British pioneer, Lancelot Oliver. Mark his words well.

We have never held that a return to New Testament Christianity and acceptance of what we think constitutes it are necessarily one and the same thing; and at needed moments the fact has been recalled that we must ever be ready to diminish or enlarge, as further truth breaks forth from God’s word.

An application of that wisdom would have spared us many a woe. Our plea for a return to New Testament Christianity must be distinguished from what we believe constitutes that return. We can be confident in the ideal of New Testament Christianity, and we can and should plead for it. But our understanding of what this involves may be only partly right, and so we invite others to help us realize the ideal. So, we can be certain of the validity of our plea, while suspicious of our own mastery of it. - the Editor