The Hope of the Believer . . .

WHAT DIFFERENCE DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?

An article in Guardian of Truth ,a Church of Christ paper, authored by Steve Wolfgang, on the history of the institutional controversy caught my eye, mainly because it raised the question as to whether the 25-year old controversy could have been avoided. The "institutional controversy" concerns such matters as the support of the Herald of Truth TV-Radio program, colleges, and orphan homes. Journals, colleges, churches, preachers have taken different sides. Numerous debates have been held through the years. Some of those involved in the dispute contend that another division has already taken place, adding still another kind of Church of Christ to a list that is already far too long. That is the case in my own hometown where we have what one side calls an "anti" Church of Christ and the other side calls the "institutional" Churches of Christ. There is no fellowship between them.

I do not recognize such drawing of lines against sisters and brothers in Christ, and I do not believe in such sectarianism. I have no "anti" brethren or "institutional" brethren. They are all my brethren in Christ equally, and I love and accept them all. I may not agree with either side, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we have all been baptized into Christ and are part of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. We are in fellowship with each other whether we like it or not, and we should like it since it was God who called us into the fellowship, not some party. We will have to give an account to him as to the way we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ.

But I was interested in what the writer would say about whether the fratricidal altercation could have been avoided. His answer was that it could not. Was the division preventable? No, he says. Was it inevitable? Yes. Is there any possibility of the restoral of fellowship? He says no, though he wishes it were otherwise.

What impresses me about the article is the underlying assumption that the differences have to be resolved before there can be fellowship. The writer says, for example, that the division could not be avoided because the differences could not be resolved. He quotes historian David Harrell, who is on his side of the controversy, as saying: "Does anyone seriously believe that the thousands of unscriptural promotions dreamed up will suddenly, or slowly, begin to disappear? Of course not. No man could bring it off; not 20 or 50 or 200 men could bring it off. And not only could they not, they will not bring it about."

It is clear that these brethren believe that fellowship is contingent on seeing eye to-eye on "the issues." Each of our sects has its own set of "issues" that it makes tests of fellowship. Harrell is saying that the institutional brethren are not going to give up their institutions, so there can be no fellowship with them. Others in the Church of Christ would say the same thing about Harrell: They refuse to have fellowship with him because he won't give up his "unscriptural promotions," such as multiple cups for Communion and the Sunday School.

This mentality that we must agree on all these things before we can be in fellowship is a fallacy that has been our undoing. It is the reason why our people, who began as a movement to unite the Christians in all the sects, have divided and subdivided into twenty-odd fragments in this century alone. It is contrary to the genius of our Movement, which was based upon the premise of "In essentials, unity; in opinions (and methods), liberty; in all things, love," and had as one of its epigrams "We are free to differ, but not to divide."

Those of a different spirit insist on the converse of that: We are not free to differ, but we are free to divide.

Their position is also at odds with the very Book they look to as authoritative.

As far back as Abraham there was the principle that men can see things differently and still accept each other as brothers. Abraham and Lot had a dispute. The patriarch pled with his nephew on the grounds that "We are kinsmen" or "We are brethren," and so "Let there be no dispute between you and me" (Gen. 13:8). Abraham's conciliatory spirit was based upon what has always been considered common sense neighborliness: People can disagree without falling out.

That spirit has had difficulty surviving among God's people. Even the apostle John was afflicted with narrow exclusivism, according to Mk. 9:38. He found one casting out demons in the name of Christ and forbade him, for "he was not following us." He reported this to Jesus, as a good party man would, expecting the Lord to support him. The Lord did not go along, which must have surprised John as much as it does many sectarians today, who have a way of ignoring this passage. Jesus told John not to forbid him, for if one is not against him he is for him. Here Jesus makes it clear that his followers can have differences and still accept each other. And the differences can be substantial enough that they do not follow each other-"He follows not us," John complained.

This principle became an apostolic mandate as a means of preserving unity amidst diversity: "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions" (Rom. 14:1). This tells us plainly that we are to receive each other despite differences. This was generally the practice of the early Christians. The congregations were not carbon copies of each other. Even Paul and Peter had their differences within the fellowship.

So, the answer to our question as to what difference differences make we have to conclude that they do not have to disrupt fellowship so long as they are matters of opinion, methods, and personal or congregational preference. There were some problems in the early church that were far more serious and they threatened the survival of the church itself. Tradition has it that the apostle John fled the bathhouse when the heretic Cerenthus entered. This was a far different case than the one of the man who was serving Christ but not following with John, for Cerenthus was a Gnostic who preached a different gospel.

This is to say that there are differences that matter enough that they render fellowship impossible. If they deny or compromise the essentials of the faith, they cannot be tolerated. This is why in Scripture a heretic is to be rejected (Tit. 3:10), false teachers are identified (2 Pet. 2:1-3), deceivers of the simple are marked (Ro. 16:17-18), and the antichrists are not to be received (2 Jn. 7-10).

But these are not the kinds of differences that Wolfgang and Harrell are talking about. A brother who believes he may support gospel preaching by sending his money to a sponsoring church instead of through the church treasury (Neither is in the Bible!) may be honestly mistaken, but he is not an antichrist or a heretic. Supporting an orphanage is not a denial of the person of Christ. These are matters of opinion, honest differences, and they are not destructive to the soul, unless perchance one is lead to go against his own conscience.

So, there are differences that can be absorbed within a loving and accepting fellowship. We can have churches that support Herald of Truth and orphanages and those that do not. We can have churches that use instrumental music or have a Sunday School and those that do not. And on and on this can go, with each Christian and each congregation following his or its own preference and conscience.

But we cannot have churches that are antichrist or deny the gospel or are heretical and churches that are not. Here the line has to be drawn, for light cannot fellowship darkness, Christ cannot fellowship Belial.

But it is an entirely different matter when brethren differ over incidentals, methods, opinions, scruples, and honest efforts to understand and follow the Bible.

If we leave the matter where brethren Wolfgang and Harrell have it, unity is an impossibility, for we are never going to see all these things alike. So long as we say, "You have to see it my way for me to accept you," we will continue in our sectarian ways, dividing and subdividing. But if we will allow love and forbearance to transcend petty differences, we can "Preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Do we really desire to follow the plain injunctions of Scripture in this regard?

The choice is ours. We can be sectarian or we can be free in Christ. We can be petty and shallow or we can be magnanimous and reasonable. We can responsibly make distinctions between differences, recognizing that while some are crucial others are less important, or we can irresponsibly preserve the old bromides of our insipid sectarianism.

Sweet reasonableness! That is what we see in Jesus and in Scripture, and that is the great need of the hour. — the Editor

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. It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect. I never did, at any time, exclude a man for a mere imbecility of intellect; or, in other words, because he could not assent to my opinions. We will acknowledge all as Christians who acknowledge the gospel facts and obey Jesus Christ. —Alexander Campbell, Mill. Harb., 1830, 145-146.