CAN WE UNITE ON WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON?

By the time Alexander Campbell was thirty years into his work as a reformer he was having second thoughts as to the basis upon which all Christians could be united. In 1839, when he was 52, he began a series of essays in his Millennial Harbinger on “Christian Union,” in which he referred to his earlier writings on the subject. While he had always had a passion for the subject, he notes, it was some time before he could “clearly see the ground on which all true Christians could form one visible and harmonious union, and cordially co-operate in a common salvation.”

Those words in quote sum up the Stone-Campbell movement. It was a movement to unite the Christians in all the sects. Its earliest documents were unity documents, and the Stone and Campbell movements, at the outset separate efforts, themselves became one unity movement in 1832. As Robert Richardson, the movement’s first and most reliable historian, said, “This movement was born of a passion for unity, and unity has been it consuming theme.”

It is noteworthy that thirty years after his father had published The Declaration and Address, which may be thought of as the movement’s magna carta for unity, and he himself had written extensively on the subject, Alexander Campbell said that in those earlier years he did not “clearly see” the ground for unity. He was referring to his Christian Baptist days, published from 1823-1830, and such essays as “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.” In reading that material one might not conclude that Campbell had a clarity problem, not in his own mind at least, but he would conclude that Campbell saw unity as predicated upon restoring “the ancient order” as he perceived that order.

By 1839 he was writing a new series on unity in which he criticizes his earlier views as not yet crystallized. It says something for an editor that he can change his mind or at least modify his views. It not only indicates an honest search for truth but a man who is on the growing edge. Would that his tribe increase among today’s editors!

Too, in his more mature years Campbell was less caustic toward “the sects.” In his 1839 series he calls for “a congress of all Protestant parties,” and if anyone wants to invite the Greek and Roman sects he would vote for it. Once representatives from all the sects are gathered, he goes on, a “rule of union” should be set forth for their consideration, to wit: “Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union.” He adds, “and whatever is not by all parties admitted as of divine authority, shall be rejected as schismatical and human.”

Campbell concluded his essay by asking all lovers of Christian union to consider his proposal. History indicates that even Campbell’s own people have not given this proposal the attention it deserves. We can unite upon the things we all hold in common, upon catholic principles! The things that we disagree on will be considered opinions and not made terms of unity and fellowship. Even within our own movement we have failed to catch Campbell’s vision. I for one am persuaded that when Campbell made catholicity the rule of union he set forth the only possible way that all believers can be united. We certainly cannot unite upon our differences, and if we wait until all the differences are ironed out we will always be divided.

Campbell’s proposal was a stroke of genius, and yet so simple and workable that one would suppose it would often be heard in ecumenical circles. But ecumenical leaders have a way of being abstruse in their sincere but complex proposals for oneness among Christians. As for the rest of us we are so caught up in our differences that we appear to be blind to the fact that Christians agree far more than they differ.

In my recent visits to all the 70-odd churches in my home town that was the one fact that impressed me the most, that we all have far more in common than we have been willing to admit. Campbell proposed unity on those commonalities.

Campbell’s magnanimous proposal was not ignored by John T. Johnson, “the evangelist of Kentucky” he was called, and who more than anyone else was responsible for the union of the Stone and Campbell forces back in 1832. Nine years later, in 1841 and in the same city of Lexington, Ky.,Johnson called such a gathering as Campbell proposed. In issuing an invitation to all parties, he announced: “As the union of Christians is most desirable, being of eternal importance, the great object will be to ascertain the scriptural bond of union, in order to its accomplishment.”

A large audience assembled for the affair on April 2, 1841. Dr. James Fishback, a Baptist, and Alexander Campbell were the main speakers. In Campbell’s address he set forth his “rule for union” that he had proposed two years earlier, but in these words this time:

RESOLVED, That the union of Christians can be scripturally effected by requiring a practical acknowledgment of such articles of belief and such rules of piety and morality as are admitted by all Christian denominations. (Mill. Harb., 1841, p. 259)

The large assembly unanimously approved the resolution. They also approved of a second resolution that made the Bible and the Bible alone as the sufficient foundation on which all Christians may unite. They found no problem in coupling those resolutions, for it is the Bible and the Bible only that sets forth the universal principles upon which believers can unite. There is no suggestion that every doctrine referred to in the Bible would have to be seen alike, for it is generally conceded that this is impossible.

In Dr. Fishback’s address he dealt with the differences that those in the assembly held in reference to baptism: “There is scriptural ground for an honest difference of opinion among the sincere disciples and followers of Jesus Christ, laid in the weakness and imperfections of man, and that they ought not disown one another at the Lord’s table as Christians on account of their difference.”

Campbell apparently agreed with this, for he hailed the speech as one of the finest he ever heard and wanted it printed and distributed widely. The rule of catholicity as the basis of unity forces us to allow for differences on baptism. The “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” which Campbell often named as a summary of catholicity, are agreed to by virtually all Christians, though they may differ on how these are appropriated. While it is true that all believers may concede that immersion is the one mode that all could properly agree to, it has been too controversial for too long for this to be immediately effected.

Only by allowing for differences on baptism will unity ever be possible, but that does not mean that we cannot and should not, in a united church, bear witness to what we believe about baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. But while doing that we can accept as equals in Christ those who do not see it the way we do. This does not call for us to approve of anything we believe to be wrong or LO surrender any truth we hold. We can accept one as an equal in Christ without approving of all he may believe and practice.

The heart of the rule of union is that we all be committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is Lord! This is the basis of our faith, and it is the only creed the early church had. All who sincerely follow him the best they know how, faithful and obedient according to their understanding, are Christians. We all agree that what God requires is “love mercy, do justly, and walk humbly with God,” but we will differ on particular applications of such principles, such as the question of a just war, euthanasia, abortion, genetic engineering, etc., etc.

Campbell wanted his people to think about and talk about his proposal. Can we unite, even among ourselves, on the things we agree on? Unless we hold things like Sunday schools, cups for Communion, instrumental music, societies and agencies, inerrancy, millennial views, etc., etc. as essentials to the catholic or universal faith (The church everywhere, for instance, would have to be acappella to be a true church), then we can accede to Campbell’s resolution. “In essentials (universals) unity, in opinions (subordinate doctrine) liberty” has always been our plea. Is there really any other way to unite?

Thomas Campbell anticipated his son’s rule for union when he wrote the first proposition for his Declaration and Address: “The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one.” But when he penned those words in 1809 there wasn’t a congregation on earth that he could call his own. Where was that church? He answered that in his next line, “consisting of all those everywhere who profess their faith in Christ and obey him in all things according to the Scriptures.” This is the church catholic, preserved in truth—universal truths.

That church always has been since the Holy Spirit breathed it into existence and always will be until Christ comes to claim it as his own.

It is those truths centered in Jesus Christ that make us one. Nothing else will, nothing else can. So, Thomas Campbell scored a point that most of us still have not grasped. The church is already one and cannot be other than one by its very nature, and all who are part of it are united in Christ and with one another in the Spirit.. Factions, divisions, parties fasten themselves like leeches upon that church, but they cannot destroy it or its unity. The gates of hades shall never prevail against it, for it is one, holy, apostolic, and catholic.—the Editor