A LETTER TO A FELLOW EDITOR

(The following letter to Dr. Thomas Warren, editor of The Spiritual Sword, is self-explanatory.—Ed.)

10 November 1982

Dear Dr. Warren:

I just had an odd experience in reading your October issue of The Spiritual Sword, so I thought I would tell you about it. Since I too am very concerned about the current onslaught of secularistic humanism, I had more than common interest in your editorials. I was agreeing with you all the way, so you can appreciate how surprised I was when I reached your third editorial and found myself named among the bad guys! Already I was in agreement with your thesis, There are at least some things about which one must be right!, and yet I found myself, along with Carl Ketcherside, named as one who does not believe this. In fact I am sure that Carl and I both would go beyond that and say there are many things in which one must be right.

But allow me to remind you of what you wrote:

“It seems clear to this writer that many, who years ago fought valiantly against the ungodly doctrine of ‘unity-in-diversity’ long advanced by Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside, are now saying basically the same thing which those two have been saying, in effect, for so long: since we disagree on some matters, then we can (with God’s approval) disagree on everything, or at least almost everything. There is little or nothing about which we must be right. Therefore, we can have ‘unity’ no matter what anyone believes and teaches. We can all bring our ‘little tents’ (of doctrinal error) in under the ‘big tent’ (of compromise) and announce to the world that we are united just as Christ would have us be. This is false doctrine.”

I take it, my dear brother, that you do not read what I write, for I do not believe any of the things you charge me of, except unity-in-diversity, and anyone who reads my journal with any consistency knows that this is the case. In fact I do not know of any Christian in any church that would say, “There is little or nothing about which we must be right.” They would all agree with you as I do that “This is false doctrine.”

As for unity-in-diversity your essay implies that there are some things upon which we might differ. That being the case then you too believe in unity despite differences, which is all that I mean by unity-in-diversity. The New Covenant Scriptures are replete with instances of (such as Peter and Paul) and instructions about unity in diversity (such as “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind”), so I presume we both believe that brothers can differ and still be one in Christ. We therefore both believe in unity in diversity, so it may not be an “ungodly doctrine” after all. It would depend on what unity in diversity is made to mean. It certainly cannot be made to mean that “since we disagree on some matters, then we can disagree on everything, or at least almost everything,” as you represent me as believing. It would be interesting to see how you would document that from my writings, as you usually choose to do as a Christian scholar.

Since we now agree on unity in diversity, as herein explained, I will say a word about the other charges you make. By the way, brother Warren, since we are both committed to the imperatives of the Bible don’t you think we should be especially cautious as editors lest we judge each other unfairly?

1. Again and again in Restoration Review and in unity meetings I have advocated unity on the grounds of the seven ones of Eph. 4, following our pioneers in this regard, who based their unity movement upon what Campbell liked to call “the seven principles.” True, they sometimes reduced these to their essence and pled for unity on the grounds of “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” So I stand with Paul and with the Campbells on the seven unities as the basis of fellowship. Is this not far from “Therefore, we can have ‘unity’ no matter what one believes and teaches,” as you charge Carl and me with advocating?

2. I have always insisted that no sister or brother can be asked to compromise any truth that she or he holds, including a “truth” that others may consider an opinion, such as a particular view on prophecy. Our churches, therefore, must be sufficiently tolerant as to accept both millennialists and antimillennialists. We can only ask that neither will impose his views upon others as a test of fellowship. Yes, one may compromise an opinion for the sake of unity (or keep the opinion to himself), but never what he holds as truth, and certainly not the great truths of the Christian faith. And yet in your essay you charge me with advocating a compromise with truth for the sake of unity.

3. As for the “big tent” under which we all gather with our “little tents” of doctrinal error and announce to the world that we are one, it is a cruel caricature of what I believe. I have long insisted that unity is not ours to create. It is a given of God, “the Spirit’s unity,” which we are to preserve with loving forbearance. There is no “big tent” under which we are to gather, for God has already given us that divine Tabernacle, not made with men’s hands, which is infused with his Spirit. All who are in Christ (no one else) are in that Tabernacle, and it is the Spirit that fills that Tabernacle that makes us one—not unity forums, not councils, not popes, and not editors! So, in a very important sense we are already one and the church is already united. Unity is real if we are in Christ, but perhaps not fully realized. This is what Thomas Campbell meant when he wrote: “The Church of Christ upon earth is intentionally, essentially, and constitutionally one.” His movement was not to restore that church or to make it one. It already existed and it was already one! It cannot be other than one, for Christ cannot be divided. It is a matter of our accepting each other as in Christ and thus preserve the unity of the Spirit, as the apostle instructs.

So much for what you had to say about Carl and me in context. You also imply that we do not believe that very interesting proposition that you often proclaim, as in the Flew debate: Truth is both absolute and attainable. While that is a philosophical thesis and not a biblical one, we will have to view it as an opinion, or perhaps as a deduction drawn from Scripture and reason. In any event we would not be able to make it an article of faith, even if it does appear in Spiritual Sword. It is not in Scripture! Nonetheless, I agree on this deduction, with some qualification.

To be sure, truth is absolute, but it is only truth that is absolute, not everything that you and I say is truth. What the Scriptures actually say, explicitly, is true, but what we say it means may not be. For example, “When that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away,” is true, absolutely true, but my idea of what “that which is perfect” means may not be true. This is where we must allow for differences, not over what is said but over what we think it means.

As for truth being attainable, there are two qualifications, assuming that you mean that truth can be known. We can attain only that truth which God has vouchsafed to us. Dt. 29:29 says that the “revealed” things belong to us, while the “secret things” belong only to God. There are many truths among God’s secrets that we will never know in this world, but still they are truths, and are unattainable, for now at least.

This is also the case with things in nature. I recently heard a scientist postulate the idea that there are thousands of inhabited planets in the far-flung universe. If this is true, then it is indeed an absolute truth, and always has been, since creation at least, whether we have attained unto it or not. Only in this generation have we discovered truths that have always been true.

Another qualification has to be that we are not likely to attain truth absolutely, maybe no truth at all. While Jesus is the ultimate truth, and while we profess to both love him and know him, who can say that his love is perfect or his knowledge absolute? Only God is omniscient. We “look through a glass darkly” and do not know and cannot know as we will in eternity.

So, I do not see that the thesis Truth is absolute and attainable, while generally true, is particularly helpful. But I nonetheless respect your fondness for it. But you could remove the redundancy, Truth is attainable, for truth by its very nature is absolute. God is truth! One does not have to say that God is absolute truth.

But we are basically agreed in this regard, for we can certainly attain (and continue to attain through study) those truths that God has revealed so that we can serve him faithfully in this world.

Now that you have a firsthand report of what I really believe and what I have all these years taught, by word and by pen, and witnessed to by thousands, it is in your hands as to whether you will correct these misrepresentations. You have spoken falsely concerning your brothers in Christ, men for whom Christ died. As for Carl Ketcherside, there are tens of thousands that have read him and heard him for many years who would laugh in your face at what you said about him. And it should not be too difficult for a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt to see that people who read and hear a man just might know more about what he believes than one who does not and will not either read him or hear him!

Well, so much for all this. I hope I have not bored you, no more at least than you bore me! And I hope the best for you in your ministry at the School of Preaching and through The Spiritual Sword. I am sure that you are a blessing to a lot of people.

I notice in the Firm Foundation that you are soon to be in Denton for a Spiritual Sword lectureship, with all the faithful ones in tow. I hope it all goes well. If you will drop by the house, we’ll talk it over, with Ouida serving wine and/or coffee. If you are anti-wine, which is not very philosophical, or anti-coffee, which is more understandable, we’ll settle for water. Unity in diversity!

P.S. I have mixed motives in writing this. Besides wanting to inform you of these things, I will also use it in Restoration Review, to which I presume you will have no objection. I have been ill somewhat this year and need all the writing time I can manage.