THE MOTTO THAT SAYS IT ALL

Most of us take to mottoes and slogans, for they have a way of saying much in few words. Most states within our Union have their mottoes. from Tennessee's bland "Commerce and Agriculture" to Virginia's exotic "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus Ever to Tyrants), which is often accompanied with a picture of a booted foot crushing a serpent. Texas' motto is so tame that even Texans have to be told that it is "Friendship."

Businesses often have theirs. I've always admired "Delta is ready when you are and "There's a Ford in your future." But none is more creative than "Things go better with Coke," which always reminds me of Ouida. In fact it fits Ouida better than Coke.

I found that a lot of philosophy could be taught to college and high school students alike by way of aphorisms. Once they understand what Socrates meant by "The unexamined life is not worth living" and what Francis Bacon meant by "Knowledge is power," they are off to a good start. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" and Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things" may be more difficult, but they have a way of summarizing great systems of thought.

Our parents and grandparents always have their maxims, such as "A stitch in time saves nine," "An idle mind is the devil's workshop," and "Pretty is as pretty does." They live on through the generations because they are packed with common sense. Ouida's favorite is Ben Franklin's "Early to bed and early to rise makes one healthy. wealthy, and wise, "which doesn't quite apply to her since she doesn't practice it but is still healthy, wealthy, and wise, and a lot more. Franklin also gave us "A penny saved is a penny earned," and somebody also gave us "Penny wise and pound foolish."

Slogans are often stamped on coins and our own nation is unique in that we put two slogans on the same coin E Pluribus Unum means "Out of many, one," which refers to the unity of our nation amidst all its diversity. That we stamp "In God We Trust" on the same coin says more about our national heritage than is apparent in the lives of our people.

That our own forebears in the Stone-Campbell Movement would make substantial use of slogans says something about their practical approach to religion. It was more than a penchant for turning a phrase, for they couched the basic principles of their plea for reformation in a half dozen maxims. It was one of their ways of catching the ears of the masses, and it was consistent with the frontier mind which thought not only in simple terms but boldly and individualistically as well. -we are Christians only" might say more than a dozen discourses and -we speak where the Scriptures speak and are silent where the Scriptures are silent" might say more against the creeds of men than many arguments.

But the slogan that says it all had its origin in the Protestant Reformation and has appeared in different forms. Today we usually say. "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion. liberty: in all things. love." It first appeared as, In fundamentals, unity; in non- fundamentals, liberty; in all things: charity, which may make the meaning clearer. But its best form may be: In essentials unity: in non-essentials, liberty; in all things. charity. Considered together they make it clear that we are to be united in areas of faith, fundamentals, and essentials.

I say this slogan says it all because it gives us in capsule form what our heritage as a unity movement is all about. It first of all calls for unity. not conformity. It assumes that unity is both desirable and possible. Moreover. it couples unity with both freedom and love, recognizing that the three values stand together. Unity without freedom is a contradiction, and freedom without love is hardly freedom at all. These three. unity. freedom, and love, are attributes of true religion because they are attributes of God. This slogan joins them in an exciting relationship. Truth in liberty; love in diversity would be another way of putting it, but the old slogan. which reverberated across the Reformation in Europe. says it better.

But this slogan has an eerie paradox associated with It: while we all agree with it we seem unable to practice it. I have not yet met the first person who questions its validity. All agree that we can and should unite upon matters of faith, and we agree that we should allow liberty in matters of opinion. And of course we are of one mind that all things should be done in love. The slogan stands unchallenged and it is accepted by all parties and factions. Where then is the problem?

While we agree that we can unite on matters of faith and allow liberty in matters of opinion. we are unable to agree on what constitutes faith and what constitutes opinion. What is a matter of faith to one is a matter of opinion to another, and what is a matter of opinion to one is a matter of faith to another. This creates an impasse. So, accepting the truth of the axiom is not our problem. for we all accept it. but finding the proper application of it. It appears that if we could satisfy ourselves on what things are in the category of faith and what things are in the category of opinion. we'd be home free.

Our pioneers supposed they had the answer to this, for to them matters of faith are those things clearly and distinctly set forth in scripture. while opinions are unclear and indistinct. Or as Alexander Campbell put it. faith has to do with facts. while opinions are theories drawn from the facts. That God is and that he created the world are facts, and here there can be unity, but theories about the nature of God and how he created the world are matters of opinion (or deductions), and here we are to allow liberty to differ. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are facts, and we can all unite upon such facts, but there are endless opinions, even theological systems, as to what all these facts mean.

Our pioneers were able to implement this slogan better than we do today, and perhaps it was because they had no problem distinguishing between faith and opinion. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell. in their disagreement over the nature of the preexistence of Christ, are an illustration of this. They agreed on the fact of Scripture that in some way Jesus as the Son of God existed in eternity before he became a man. But Stone claimed that while the Son is one with God it is only in essence for they are separate persons, and so Jesus is to be reverenced as the Son of God but not as God. He thus rejected what is usually meant by the Trinity. which caused him to be associated with the ancient heresy of Arianism. This illustrates how most "heresy" so-called is a matter of theological speculation.

While Campbell was more orthodox on this issue and even considered Stone seriously mistaken, he recognized that the difference was a matter of opinion and never allowed it to affect their friendship or fellowship, which were close. But in the Campbell-Rice debate Mr. Rice took advantage of this disagreement between the two leaders of the Movement, charging that they could not be united when they differed in this way. This led Campbell to explain the difference between faith and opinion and the nature of the unity he sought, which stands as one of his masterpieces. 

Our bond of union is not opinion, nor unity of opinion. It is one lord, one faith, one baptism. one Spirit. one hope. one God and Father of all. These we all preach and teach. We have no patented form of sound words drawn up by human art and man's device, to which all must vow eternal fidelity. It is our peculiar felicity, and perhaps. it may be our honor, too. that we have been able to discover a ground so common, so sacred, so divinely approbated. so perfectly catholic and enduring. on which every man who loves our lord Jesus Christ sincerely, may unite, and commune. and harmonize. and cooperate in all the works of faith, in all the labors of love. and in all perseverance of hope. (Campbell-Rice Debate, p.505) 

He saw his plea as "perfectly catholic" because it called for a unity based only upon principles that all believers accept. the seven unities of Ephesians 4 (He inadvertently omitted "one body" in the above reference). He often summarized these as "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," naming them as the facts upon which all Christians can unite, even when they differ on opinions about the facts. So he and Stone were united upon the "one lord" even when they had a different theology about his preexistence. Campbell allowed this so long as the differences were sincere and so long as they were held strictly as opinion and not imposed upon others as a matter of faith.

We should be able to come up with some rules of interpretation in determining what is faith and what is opinion. Here is one: matters concerning which the Scriptures do not speak clearly are matters of opinion. Another might be: matters of faith are based upon facts set forth in Scripture: matters of opinion are what we think those facts mean, or theories drawn from the facts.

Some examples: That the Scriptures are inspired is a fact. a matter of faith: but a theory of how they are inspired is a matter of opinion. Singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a matter of fact, a matter of faith; but hymnals, tuning forks, instruments, shaped notes, sheet music, solos, choirs, etc. are matters of opinion.

Tongue-speaking in the apostolic church is a fact, a matter of faith: but whether it continues to apply during the centuries and today is a matter of opinion. The kingdom of God is a fact of Scripture, a matter of faith; but as to precisely what it is and how it manifests itself in human history and in God's tomorrow is a matter of opinion.

Distinguishing between faith and opinion may also be done by use of the other terms that have been used in the slogan--essentials and fundamentals. Can we go so far, for instance, as to make acappella singing essential to salvation, and is it fundamental to the Christian faith? Is any single interpretation of the millennium essential to being a Christian? On and on it goes. When we list the things that divide us we can hardly name them as necessary to being a Christian.

But we can all agree with Campbell that the seven ones of Eph. 4, which the apostle Paul himself listed as the basis of unity, are essential and fundamental. But not theories, opinions, and deductions drawn from those fundamentals.

This does not mean that opinions are unimportant. Some of them may be true and crucial to our understanding. but as Thomas Campbell put it in his Declaration and Address: They are not to be imposed upon others as the true doctrine of Christ except as they see the connection. That is the essence of the slogan that says it all: we are free to hold opinions but we are not to be pushy with them.

A revival of commitment to an old motto would go far in reconstituting us as the unity people we were meant to be, however it may be worded.

In matters of faith or essentials (facts, principles, fundamentals) unity.

In matters of opinion or non-essentials (theories, deductions, methods) liberty.

In all things love or charity.  —the Editor