UNITY IN DIVERSITY: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

We still hear adverse responses to the idea of unity in diversity, mostly from the Church of Christ right wing, and I am still at a loss to understand how anyone can seriously deny the validity of the concept. I could as easily believe that one would deny that a triangle has three angles as for him to deny that it is the nature of unity to be diverse. Reference is even made to the “unity-in-diversity heresy,” and I am now and again named as one of the heretics, along with the likes of Carl Ketcherside.

Now and again for a quarter of a century Carl and I have noted that the beauty of Christian unity is that believers who are quite different from each other in many ways and who have diverse views about the Bible can still love and accept each other and be one together in the Body of Christ. We have pointed to the apostles as an example. Not only did Jesus select Matthew the tax collector, but also Simon the Zealot, political opposites and no doubt personality opposites. But their love for Christ transcended the differences and they found peace and oneness in their mutual faith. That is what unity is all about.

Then there is Paul and Peter who differed and Paul and Barnabas, and even the New Testament churches were as diverse as churches today are. The New Testament plea for unity implies the prevalence of difficult differences, such as “Be always humble, gentle, and patient. Show your love by being tolerant with one another. Do your best to preserve the unity which the Spirit gives by means of the peace that binds you together” (Eph. 4:2-3, GN), Why call for tolerance or forbearance if there are not rather serious differences to absorb? The binding or uniting power of peace implies a union of diverse elements.

All the unity passages imply a blending of diverse elements or they mandate an acceptance of each other despite differences. Such as:

“Welcome the person who is weak in faith, but do not argue with him about his personal opinions” (Rom. 14:1).

“One person thinks that a certain day is more important than other days, while someone else thinks that all days are the same. Each one should firmly make up his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).

“Accept one another, then, for the glory of God, as Christ has accepted you” (Rom. 15:7).

“There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served. There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God gives ability to everyone for their particular service” (1 Cor. 12:5-6).

Even those passages that instruct us to “agree,” such as 1 Cor. 1:10: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ I appeal to all of you, my brothers, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you,” indicate that the agreement is to be on the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not on the myriad of opinions that can be found in any church, which would be an impossible requirement.

Moreover, Carl Ketcherside and I have suggested numerous examples of unity in diversity from everyday life. We have tried to show that the only unity that is possible is unity in diversity. There is no other kind! There are the diverse elements that make up marriage and the family, and yet unity is often beautifully manifested. Then there is music. A symphony orchestra is not composed of people who all play the same instrument, and yet there is harmony.

The planetary system is an impressive example of unity in diversity. In spite of millions of stars and planets, all different, there is what the philosophers called “the music of the spheres.” Then there is the human body with all its varied members in a unity that glorifies God, as does all nature which is unity in diversity.

Since Carl and I first presented this thesis, the unity and diversity in the New Testament has emerged as a lively study among scholars, particularly in British circles. Prof. James D. G. Dunn has written an entire book on the subject. I am sure he would be surprised to learn that the very idea of unity in diversity is a heresy!

The charitable response to this criticism is to conclude that the critics do not quite mean what they say. After all, they are not idiots but responsible and intelligent men. They themselves are examples of unity in diversity, for they do not agree on everything and yet they are united, especially in opposing unity in diversity!

I take it that they really mean something like “unity with excessive diversity” is wrong, or “unity with extreme and dangerous doctrines” is a heresy. They do not fear all differences in thinking, but certain differences. They both believe and practice diversity in their unity, but it is a selective diversity. They might differ on whether a Christian can join the military but not on instrumental music.

I have learned one thing in particular from their complaint, which I appreciate, and that is the implication that we do not seem to know where to draw the line. They have said, “Ketcherside and Garrett fellowship anybody and everybody. Anything goes.” That is not the case, of course, but maybe we have failed to make ourselves clear in that regard. I have been accused of accepting even the Mormons.

All through the years Carl has been emphatic in explaining that he shares the common life (fellowship) with all who are in Christ. He further explained that this includes all immersed believers. We are united in faith and obedience; we can differ on opinions and methods, such as instrumental music or Sunday Schools. One would think that that would circumvent any such charge as “He fellowships anybody and everybody.”

I have agreed with this limitation to fellowship, stating that the unity in diversity for which we plead is Christian unity, a unity of believers and not inclusive of anybody and everybody, whether Sikhs, Hindus, or atheists. Yes, as Carl likes to put it, unity of all those who are in Christ. If a Mormon is in Christ, then he would be included; if not, he would not be. But a Mormon would be in the fellowship, not because he is a Mormon but because he is a Christian, in spite of Mormonism.

But my critics have made me more conscience of what really does constitute “the bottom line” in feowship. Of course, the line is to be drawn. Unity in diversity does not mean that there are no parameters, no limitations, no lines. That we have been too quick to draw the line on “the brother for whom Christ died,” to quote the apostle, does not mean that the line is not to be drawn.

I have become increasingly uncomfortable with making baptism the place to draw the line, particularly our own doctrine and practice of baptism. The apostle Paul has influenced me in some of my recent conclusions. He found baptized disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-2), but he was not satisfied until they were filled with the Holy Spirit. And in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) we have a case of believers receiving the Spirit before they were baptized. Can we fellowship believers who have received the Holy Spirit though not yet baptized?

But even more important is the obvious fact that a person is not necessarily a true Christian and in the “fellowship of the Spirit” just because he has been baptized. There must be many baptized “carnal” Christians, and according to 1 Cor. 3:1 there is a question that they are really Christians.

I prefer the “test” or “the line drawn” by the early church, the church of New Testament times, and that is the confession that Jesus is Lord! That is my creed and that is where I draw the line, on the Lordship of Christ. This means loyalty and commitment to Jesus Christ as the Lord of glory.

While such a one will almost certainly be a baptized believer, that is not the bottom line. Is he faithful and loyal to Jesus Christ according to his age, understanding, and ability?

With this simple standard we will get back to our pioneers in the Stone-Campbell Movement as well as to the simple faith of the primitive community. Isaac Errett named Christlikeness as the only test that the church should require, and Alexander Campbell called for “general obedience to Christ” or “one who habitually obeys” as the mark of the Christian, which allows for errors in intellect, “imbecility” being his word. It was “errors of the heart” that troubled Campbell.

But long before Stone and Campbell there were those Republican Methodists under the leadership of James O’Kelly and Rice Haggard, our earliest pioneers in northern Virginia, back in 1794, who became simply Christians and named their new church the Christian Church or Church of Christ. They drew up a document called Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church, which captured the essence of what our Movement was all about. One principle was “Christian character, or vital piety, the only test of church fellowship and membership.”

We were clearly off to a good start with such defensible parameters to fellowship, but what has happened to us when we now draw the line on each other over organs, agencies, societies, and even millennial theories and glossolalia?

Thomas Campbell got off to an uneasy start along these lines when he first organized the Brush Run church. He made a theological question a test for membership (What is the meritorious cause of a sinner’s acceptance with God?), which actually excluded some who would be members since they could not answer the question to Campbell’s satisfaction. His son Alexander questioned that such a test should be made and it was soon dropped. But it is a quirk in our heritage that the first Church of Christ under the Campbells was organized originally on the basis of a creed. It was not only quickly dropped, but Alexander Campbell insisted that no opinion would ever be a test, not even the slavery issue. Even that was a difference they could absorb in their unity, and Alexander Campbell prophesied early on that the slavery issue would never divide his people since they did not allow opinions to become issues. We can say, looking back, that he was generally correct.

If the Campbells, after first slipping, would not allow a doctrine about the atonement to be made a test and if Paul would not allow differences about dietary laws and holy days be made a test, how can we afford to make tests over varied notions and methods?

The confession of the early Christians, for which they went to prison and even to the stake and to the lions, should be the only test, Jesus is Lord! And since fellowship has its parameters within the church, Christian character should be the only expectation, and even that is to be viewed in terms of ability and opportunity. And even here we cannot be judgmental, allowing each to follow Christ and become like him in his or her own unique way. We are to encourage each other in Christlikeness.

We will of course always be true to our heritage and to the Scriptures and bear witness to baptism by immersion for the remission of sins within a fellowship of loving acceptance of all who honor Jesus as Lord. But we must not allow baptism to become the sine Qua non (the absolute necessity). Even Jesus was baptized, but I do not follow him because he was baptized but because of who he was and is. He is the sine qua non! —the Editor