Tradition is not necessarily a bad word, even if it frequently appears that way. It may be OK to be "traditional," for there are GOOD traditions, such as when Paul the apostle urges us to "stand fast and hold to the traditions you were taught" (2 Thess. 2:15).

We have both capital "T" traditions and small "t" traditions. The capital "T" traditions are those precious truths of the Christian faith that we share with all believers everywhere -- God as our heavenly Father and creator of heaven and earth; Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, the communion of the Holy Spirit, the church as the Body of Christ, living a Christian life, the hope laid up for us in heaven – in short what the Bible summarizes as "the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

This capital "T" tradition – which goes all the way back to Christ and the apostles, and even back to father Abraham – we share with all those who are in Christ. And we do believe, don’t we, that wherever God has a child, we have a brother or sister? We don’t have a problem with that, do we? -- Wherever God has a child, we have a brother or sister.

We share the "T" tradition with that brother or sister, wherever he or she is, and it is that tradition – our "common salvation" -- that unites us. There is no way to unity except through a mutual love and faithfulness to Jesus Christ as Lord. He is our capital "T" tradition. In him and in him only we find oneness in fellowship.

But we all – whatever church or denomination – have our small "t" traditions – our particularities that set us apart from others. While secondary to the "T" tradition – and while never the means of unity – they have their value in our Christian walk. They usually reflect our unique way of expressing the "T" tradition. They sometimes have to do with where we came from – our particular origins – and what we believe and practice that distinguishes us from other Christians.

Each denomination tends to have an emphasis in its "t" tradition – which may be what brought it into existence – that could serve the church at large, once properly communicated. For example –

Orthodox – liturgy (which can be awesome)

Roman Catholic – catholicity (frees from provincialism)

Episcopal -- the Eucharist

Pentecostals – holiness and enthusiasm

Quakers –- peace, nonviolence (in a violent world)

Lutherans – justification by faith only (it launched the Reformation)

Methodists – revivalism (at least in their origins)

Presbyterians – sovereignty of God (and pious scholarship)

Baptists – grace (as in preaching of Edwards and Spurgeon)

It is evident that these spiritual values speak to the whole church, and they all should, more or less, be true of every church. It illustrates how much we can learn from each other.

How are we to define our distinct tradition? One might say "Restoration" in that we are part of an American Restoration Movement, with European background. Or one might say "Bible only" in that we have always been a "People of the Book" – "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ." Or one could point to our emphasis on the two great ordinances of the church, the Lord’s supper (every Lord’s day) and baptism (by immersion and for remission of sins).

On the lighter side, we might be described as "the singing church," for our people can hardly do anything without singing first, and always acappella – as unique as one can get! But there are other acappella-singing churches, including the great Orthodox churches.

While these things are important in defining us, they are not the essence of who we are – or supposed to be, in the light of our beginnings. It is not any of the things above that brought us into existence. They evolved as we matured as a church.

We share our small "t" tradition with two other churches – the Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches (Independent). But we were once one church that called itself a "Movement" within the church at large.

Our first historian, Robert Richardson, in 1868 got it right when he said, "This movement was born of a love for unity, and unity has always been its consuming passion." That is who we are – or it is who we are supposed to be. We may be like the Methodists who got derailed from their beginnings as a "camp fire revival" people. However divisive we have been in our more recent history, we were born of a Movement whose vision was "to unite the Christians in all the sects." If peace is the sine qua non of the Quakers and holiness of the Pentecostals, then Christian unity is the sine qua non of the Churches of Christ – at least in the light of our heritage – along with Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches. These are the only churches that have continually claimed that Unity is our business.

Our pioneers made this clear in three significant ways – in the mottoes (aphorisms) they created, which reflected unity principles; in their founding documents, which set forth the ways and means of unity; and in effecting the first church merger in American history –when the Stone and Campbell movements – our original two streams -- became one unity movement.

Our people had a penchant for slogans. As many as six or eight that became current could be mentioned, but there were two that especially encapsulated their plea for the unity of all believers.

While they had been Presbyterians (Stone movement) and Baptists (Campbell movement) they resolved to lay aside party names and be simply Christians. They were not being fussy or arbitrary, but principled. The motto was a plea for unity on the basis of Christ’s name alone. Why be a hyphenated Christian – whether Presbyterian-Christians or Baptist-Christians –when we can be Christians only, and be united in his name alone?

They never believed as erstwhile Presbyterians and Baptists that they were not Christians when in those denominations. But they were not Christians only!. They well knew that unity could never be realized by urging all believers to be Baptists or Presbyterians. But all believers might be urged to be Christians – just Christians. It was a call for unity on a biblical principle.

That we lost sight of the second part of that slogan is one more reason we got derailed from our original call to be a unity people. Nothing is as foreign to the Stone-Campbell plea than the notion that we are the only Christians or the only true church. As Alexander Campbell himself put it: How can we be charged with believing that we are the only Christians when our mission is to unite the Christians in all the sects?

Today we must give this slogan fresh attention, particularly in terms of what it means to be a Christian. If we are Christians only, then we are to take discipleship seriously. It is one thing to believe in Christ and another thing to believe Christ – such as his call for self-discipline and self-renunciation. Some may be right in their concern that our churches are replete with "half-evangelized" people. Elton Trueblood may have had it right when he ventured that the greatest mission field is not Africa or India, but the modern church.

"Christians only" should be far more than getting the name right.

"In essentials unity; in opinions liberty; in all things love."

This motto was not original with our people, but they gave it renewed meaning. It goes back to the Protestant Reformation and has been expressed in different ways, such as "In fundamentals unity; in non-fundamentals liberty; in all things charity" or "in matters of faith unity; in matters of opinion liberty; in all things charity."

I have yet to meet the first person who questions the validity of this motto, and yet it has not spared us from our ongoing divisions. While we all agree that in essentials we are to be united and in opinions we are to allow for differences, we can't agree on what is essential and what is opinion.

While to some societies and instrumental music are matters of opinion, to others they are essentials. Our pioneers had an answer to that. What the Bible actually says – "expressly stated" as Thomas Campbell put it – is essential or a matter of faith. What we make it mean – or our deductions from what the Bible says – is an opinion.

Or as Alexander Campbell put it, "the seven facts" of Ephesians 4 – one God, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one hope -- are the essentials (matters of faith) – while theological deductions drawn from the facts are opinions. We all agree, for example, that there is one Holy Spirit – an essential to the faith – while we may differ on just how the Spirit operates. One is "T" while the other is "t."

John Locke is often quoted in reference to this – the essentials for unity are the same as for what is required for being saved or going to heaven. This infers unity in diversity, which is the only unity possible -- anything else would be unity by conformity of opinion, which can happen only in an unfree environment.

This slogan also points to why we have been so divisive. When we turn this slogan on its head and make opinions matters of faith or essential, we become sectarian and divisive.

True, an opinion may be a matter of (personal) faith (a scruple), and must be respected. That is why the apostle says in Romans 14:22: "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." The context shows that by "faith" Paul means a scruple or opinion – not the faith that is centered in Christ. This slogan is saying that we unite upon the faith, while lovingly allowing for differences in scruples, opinions, methods, theology – which to some become matters of "faith" in that they are matters of conscience.

Again, this is what Paul refers to in Romans 14, verse 4 this time: "Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls." That is, God will judge the sincerity of his scruple – such as not observing Christmas – and not ourselves. He is God’s servant, not ours, so we don’t have to judge his sincerity.

That is why this slogan wisely includes In all things love. If we love each other, we have no problem in bearing with each other’s hang-ups. It is, after all, love that unites us as sisters and brothers in Christ (Col. 3:14).

(To be continued)

Last Lord’s day Ouida and I visited the First Christian Church in Denton, where we have many friends, a congregation close to our hearts. I taught a class on "Disciples 101," which is especially for new members, acquainting them with their history and heritage. I noticed two things in their bulletin which reflected that heritage in an interesting way. Under "Minister" it read "Every member of the congregation," and in explaining the significance of Communion it said, after pointing out its central location in the furniture arrangement, "We may do without a sermon, but never would we worship without communion." That is who we are, all of us in the Stone-Campbell tradition. It is one big reason why I could never leave.

The congregation has, by the way, the most unique architecture – and perhaps the most beautiful -- of any church edifice in Denton. Come see us, and I’ll give you a tour.

For all previous essays: www.leroygarrett.org