MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS FOR THE SAKE OF UNITY?

    Men cannot give up their opinions, and, therefore, they never can unite, says one. We do not ask them to give up their opinions. We ask them only not to impose them upon others. Let them hold their opinions; but let them hold them as private property. --Alexander Campbell, Mill. Harb., 1830, p. 145.

    Here we have the essence of "the Plea" as urged upon the church of the 19th century by Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. Believers can unite upon the facts of the gospel. Opinions, theories, deductions can be held as private property and are not to be imposed upon others. The church is to unite upon the general truths of the Christian faith and allow opinions as a matter of liberty. Their plea gave rise to an old motto: In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty, in all things, love. The motto was also expressed as "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." That is one way of saying that an opinion is non-essential even if deemed important.

    Campbell particularly objected to the practice of excommunicating one or withdrawing fellowship from one because of a wrong opinion or for simply being mistaken. As he put it, "It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect," and "I never did, at any time, exclude a man from the kingdom of God for a mere imbecility of intellect; or, in other words, because he could not assent to my opinions."

    To Campbell this is what made sects, making opinions a test of fellowship. And this is why his reformation efforts could not be accused of being sectarian. He issued this challenge: "I will now show you how they cannot make a sect of us. We will acknowledge all as Christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus Christ." This is clearly a broader view of fellowship than is held by many who profess to be a part of the Movement launched by Alexander Campbell.

    Such a liberal view invites the question of how far one will go in accepting other believers. We often hear "He will fellowship anybody and everybody," which, if true, is an understandable complaint since Christian fellowship certainly has its limits. When Campbell was asked if he would fellowship a Unitarian, he responded: "What is a Unitarian? One who contends that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Such a one has denied the faith, and therefore we reject him." And yet Campbell conceded that he would accept even a Unitarian if he will ascribe to Jesus all that the Bible ascribes to him.

    So with a Trinitarian, Campbell went on to say, "If he will dogmatize and become a factionist, we reject him--not because of his opinions, but because of his attempting to make a faction, or to lord it over God's heritage. "

    Universalism was a controversial issue in those days, and Campbell explained that his people would even accept a Universalist, on one important condition:

    And will you receive a Universalist too? No; not as a Universalist. If a man, professing Universalist opinions, should apply for admission, we will receive him, if he will consent to use and apply all the Bible phrases in their plain reference to the future state of men and angels. We will not hearken to those questions which gender strife, nor discuss them at all. If a person say such is his private opinion, let him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress upon it; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it. (Mill. Harb., 1830, p. 147)

    In the same essay Campbell refers to the case of Aylette Rains, who became a preacher in the Movement while he still held Universalist opinions. When some of the leaders wanted to excommunicate Rains for said opinions, both Thomas and Alexander Campbell stood up for him, contending that he should not be rejected for an opinion per se. This is how Campbell described it some years later:

    Some of us made a proposition that if these peculiar opinions were held as private opinions, and not taught by this brother, he might be, and, constitutionally, ought to be retained; but if he should teach or inculcate such private opinions, or seek to make disciples to them, he would then become a factionist, and as such could not be fellowshipped.

    Campbell's prediction that an opinion left alone would die on its own proved true in Rain's case. Years later Rains, after decades of preaching on the frontier, acknowledged to Campbell that he hardly recalled what his opinions were in those earlier years, and he thanked him and his father for saving his ministry at a time when it might have been destroyed. And how often have we destroyed men for their opinions when it was so unnecessary!

    One will notice that Campbell here makes a clear-cut distinction between heresy and an error and between a factionist and one with a mistaken view. One who holds a doctrinal error is not a factionist, but one who is pushy and seeks to gain disciples for his view. Heresy is not simply being honestly mistaken on a matter of doctrine, but the evil effort to create division within the Body of Christ. This means that Campbell would never brand something like premillennialism a heresy, though he would insist that a premillennialist (or one with any other millennial view) is not to try to build a party. If he does, he is a factionist, whether right or wrong in doctrine. Heresy is therefore a behavioral problem more than a doctrinal problem.

    The principle of "In opinions, liberty" allows for the diversity that is certain to be present in any free society. People can no more see every point eye-to-eye than they can warp and twist every muscle and sinew so as to look alike. If men are left free, it is certain that they will differ, which is at it should be since we grow in an environment of vigorous differences. And so unity by its very nature is oneness amidst diversity. A family is a good example of how this works, for its members can be of one heart and one soul despite differences in age, experience, sex, ability, and hangups. Unity always has a cohesiveness that holds the diverse elements together. Some suppose that even among thieves, when they are united, there is honor. Whether in the home or the church, the cohesiveness is love and mutual respect. Paul names it in Col. 3:14: "Above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection."

    That love is the bond that holds together that which would otherwise be divided is evident from what the apostle said in earlier verses of that chapter. "Bearing with one another," he says in verse 13, "and forgiving one another, and if anyone has a complaint against another, even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do." That little as is powerful in that it reveals that we are to show the forbearance and love to each other that Jesus showed us. Such instruction implies that there will be differences. If we must agree on everything and be carbon copies of each other, there is nothing to forbear.

    One problem with all this is that we cannot seem to agree on what is a matter of faith and what is a matter of opinion. And so some make the practice of a Sunday School or the use of instrumental music a matter of faith, while to others these are matters of opinion. It may help if we distinguish between faith (a scruple) and the faith, which is the gospel itself. The Scriptures make this distinction, such as in Rom. 14:22: "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." Here faith is referred to as an opinion or scruple, such as regarding dietary practices or observing of holy days. This is not the same faith that refers to the basics of the Christian religion, such as Gal. 3:25: "But after (the) faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor," and Jude 3: "Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." This distinction is a difference between essentials and non-essentials. This is why Paul would tell one with a scruple about meats, "Have your faith (opinion) to yourself before God," for while he must follow his conscience and abide by his "faith," it is not something essential (the faith) that is to be imposed on those who have no such scruple.

    Or we can distinguish between faith and opinion this way: faith is limited to what the Scriptures actually say, while opinion is what one supposes it means by what it says. We can all agree, for instance, that Jesus said, "Thy kingdom come," but we may have different opinions as to what he meant by this. Or we can say that faith is based upon facts, particularly the facts of the gospel, while opinion is a theory about what said facts might imply, or a theology drawn from them. Faith is based on testimony, while an opinion is a deduction drawn from that testimony. We can all agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (testimony), but we may differ as to what theological systems, called Christology, can be erected upon that testimony. The facts about Christ are essential, the theories about him are not.

    This is why theories about the millennium or speaking in tongues or the inspiration of Scripture, or such methods as missionary societies or instrumental music are only matters of opinion and not matters of faith. Where the Bible does not speak plainly there can be no faith. And so "In opinions, liberty" means that amillennial and premillennial churches can be united to the glory of God despite their diverse views. So with charismatic and non-charismatic, instrumental and acappella. We can all have our opinions and preferences so long as we do not impose them upon others as matters of faith. This is the only way unity will ever be possible. --the Editor