The Bible a Feasible Basis for Unity
The Bible a Feasible Basis for Unity THE BIBLE A FEASIBLE BASIS FOR UNITY
By G. H. P. Showalter To attain to the unity required of our Lord there must be one divine standard, one creed, the law of Christ, accepted and obeyed—one faith and a oneness of practice and conduct.
“Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity”—Psalms 133:1. The churches of Christ today have precious privileges and opportunities which, if improved, give promise of a future richly gracious for the kingdom of our Lord.
Old denominational bonds and ties are weakening. Many are stretched and strained beyond repair—some are broken. Some are .shattered as a potsherd is broken on the rock—they can never be mended. New alignments are being made in religious fields. Old prejudices are giving way and there is increasing evidence of the dawn of a better day. Already the eastern heavens are tinted with an approaching glory that may mean the dissipation of much of the darkness of religious superstition and of creedal sectarianism that promotes division and prevents union. A book of discipline or confession of faith governing a religious party, bars from that communion all Chris,- tians who cannot conscientiously subscribe to its terms and demands. But no Christian can possibly believe all the manifold creeds written out by men and now in force in the varied groups., called churches. This is clear to anyone who will give the subject a moments thought, for any one creed contradicts all the others—they all inculcate different doctrines and impose different laws. Otherwise the Methodists could and would accept “the confession” of the Presbyterians, or the Presbyterians would accept the “Augsburg Confession” of the Lutherans, and both of these good people could consistently receive into their fellowship the whole Methodist church. It takes the different creeds to make possible the various churches. And as long as there are different churches there can be no union. One church has one fundamental law and another church has another fundamental law. One of them has one constitution and the other has another constitution. One believes one thing — the other believes another thing. No, their faith is not the same; if it were they would adopt the same creed. One believes one creed — the other another creed—hence they do not have a “common faith”— they are hopelessly divided—they cannot be united— not, and at the same time maintain their denominational identity. One really has one faith while the other has another faith. Human churches are in re-bellion against God, for the reason that they do not speak the s,ame thing—one says one thing and another contradicts it.
Christ founded one church and gave it one creed or law. He founded only one church, and he gave it only one law—the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. We can all be one when we all enter that church and abide in it—accepting its one law, the New Testament. The Methodist Church is one because its members accept the Methodist “Discipline.” Similarly the church of Christ can be one when its members accept the creed the Savior gave—the New Testament. The church of Christ can never be one on any other terms or conditions. They can never be one when and if its members begin to accept various and different creeds. The Methodist Church could not be one when and if its, members begin to accept any and/or, all the creeds of the other churches. They would immediately become divided. The question comes, “Can all professed Christians accept the Bible?” Yes, they can do this. They cannot all accept the terms of human creeds—but they can all accept the Bible as their guide—the New Testament as their rule of faith and practice. Then, on this they can be united, and this, being true this basis of union should be urged with all possible earnestness. Why not? If it is the only acknowledged basis on which all can unite—and it is agreed that union is so desirable—then consistency and reason would unite in demanding this stand for the Bible, and on the Bible alone. And this does not mean one denomination going to another—or one church uniting with another. It means that all may go to the Bible. The Bible is, yours as much as mine and mine as much as yours. It is for all. None are barred from it. Human creeds do this, but the Bible does not. The members of one creed-bound church will not fellowship the members of another creed-bound church; but the members of a Bible-bound church of Christ will fellowship all other Bible-bound churches of Christ and this, of necessity, will result in unity. And Christ prayed for this. The apostles urged it. And we can realize, it—if we will.
It is easy to illustrate. America—the United States—is one government because it has one consti-tutional lav/. The constitution of the federal government corresponds to the New Testament of the church of the Lord Jesus. But the constitution embodies the fundamental law of the land and is the basis for the oneness of the government. If the constitution of some other country should be adopted by some of our citizens, and that of still another country by others of our citizens, and some were to cling to the constitution of our land, then there would be division, strife, treason, rebellion, war and every evil work. But that is exactly what has, been done in the church. Many have set aside the divine constitution which all agree is safe and sufficient, to adopt in its stead some human constitutions and laws—hence division, strifes, wars and fightings, factions, heresies, (sects) and every evil work. If our country is to be and remain one, and indivisible it must be sustained and protected by one common constitution or law and if the church is to be and remain united it must have one common faith—one and only one law—the Bible. A Feasible 'Basis for the Union of all Christians
“If any man willeth to do his will he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself”—John 7:17. The oneness of all Christians is not only desirable but practical and possible. In unity lies strength, and in strength is the hope of the conquest of truth over error, and the salvation of the lost. In the Godhead there is the consummation and perfection of celestial harmony. In simplicity, and sublime beauty and gran-deur the Savior’s declaration has passed along down through the centuries and will stand till time shall close: “I and my Father are one”—“I am in the Father and the Father in me.” The divine Father’s power was exercised in all the wondrous works and words of Jesus. So should Christ be in us who profess to know him and love him and to represent him to the world. “Apart from me ye can do nothing.” “Abide in me and I in you.” So spake the Savior to his disciples. How strange that people fail to grasp the simple and easy meaning of the Master! He wants his people united and proposes as a basis—that only basis that is tangible, reasonable and divine—that all of his children abide in him—that is, as much as to .say, under his authority—controlled by his law. In this way only can they be of one mind and one heart —one accord, impelled by one purpose, directed by one Spirit. The Savior does not want his followers united with anything that is not of divine authority. To try to organize, and theorize, and unionize, by bringing together under one head the discordant religious institutions of human origin, is utterly foreign to the Savior’s plea and prayer for unity. When people speak according to the Scriptures they are united. When .some speak thus and others do not they are divided. What is the remedy? Men’s idea is to form a union of these incompatibilities—agree to disagree—stifle conscience—tolerate what they do not believe to be the truth—allow that men may believe anything, everything, or nothing, and do as they please, and still be in full fellowship, and go to heaven. It is a shame that great men will so reason—rather that they would so act without reason, common sense or Scripture in the prosecution of a purpose to unite the people of God. But what is God’s remedy for division? It is that those who speak according to the Scriptures, continue to do so—that they remain where they are, .stedfast, immovable—and that those who speak not according to God’s word—who have turned from the holy com-mandment (law) of God—forsake their own works and ways and come back to the Lord—abide in him, speak according to the Scriptures, obey what he commands and do as, he requires. They will all then be a united and happy people. In this way, also, the name of Christ will be magnified, and his divine law—the new covenant—exalted. The Bible—just that and nothing more—appears not to be pretentious enough, great enough, with many of the religious grandees in spiritual places. But what else is needed? What is necessary that it does not command, or edifying that it does not require? His divine power according to the apostle Peter has given unto us all things that even pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue. What more do we need as a law of life? What more can we do in the realm of right conduct? But people are not satisfied with the church as founded and furnished by our Lord. They add em-bellishments. They supply new laws, create new offices and elect officers unheard of in the New Testament to fill them. They even build other churches besides, the one Christ built and expect our Lord to accept and approve them. And these become an obstacle in the way of the unity for which Christ prayed.
There are several theories among professed Christians as to the basis of union. One group holds to the theory of making the terms liberal enough and the platform broad enough to accommodate itself to all shades and varieties of faith and to all types of religious philosophy. Others are so circumscribed in the realm of spiritual vision that they find themselves utterly intolerant of all believers who cannot with good conscience subscribe to some humanly arranged articles of faith and terms of discipline, under which they themselves have found solace for their own weary souls. Those who cannot accept said creed—receive it, uphold it and be governed by it—will just have to take another route from grace to glory. They insist that all others do as they do, or there is no peace, whereas they ought to urge that all men do as God requires in order to please God. Their ground is too narrow for all to stand on it.
“The Church and the Churches,” by Karl Barth, is a book of recent publication and contains much of interest along the line of a return to the Bible as the only practical basis of union among professed followers of Christ. Quoting from The Watchman, “Karl Barth has been preaching a liberal theology which he only half believed. His liberal theology left him completely stranded. In his plight he turned to the Bible and in this Book he discovered a new world. Barth is Christ’s ambassador boldly declaring to a faithless, carnal church and to a haughty, self-confident unbelieving world a clear, ‘Thus saith the Lord." Barth soberly and unceasingly declares these truths: That God is God, and not the lengthened shadow of man, or a mere impersonal power. * * * * That the Bible is God’s word and a witness to the redemption of man by Jesus Christ alone, that the church really stands in the world with one book, the Bible, and has essentially but one function and task, and that is to be a witness to the truth of the world.” The author of the book says: “Those who are baptized into The church of the living God’ find their faith seriously impugned by the co-existence of a number of faiths.
“The multiplicity of churches has been one of the strongest factors in that great process, so clearly dis-cernible in the last two centuries, whereby so many members have found themselves alienated from the church. “The church of Jesus Christ is one, invisible in respect of the grace of the word of God and of the Holy Spirit, visible in its congregations, * * * * and its ministry of the word.”
Whatever else may be said of Karl Barth, his book as condensed and published in the “Religious Digest” contains many statements that would suggest a desire on his part for a return to the Bible as the sole basis of unity among God’s people. Mr. Barth points out that the pagan nations are bewildered on account of the number of churches in Christendom and that it is just as true in home lands where political theories and social alignments are determined on account of religious affiliations.
Loyal Christians should urge as never before the Bible as the only divine basis or ground for the oneness of the disciples of the Lord Jesus. Whatever is more is unnecessary, and anything less is not enough.
Let us look into the matter further. Some who are righteously concerned and anxious about the union of all Christians have failed signally in the accomplishment of such union for other reasons than the foregoing.
1. Seeing the divided state of Christendom in the early part of the nineteenth century some prominent men of piety and of good intentions proposed the Bible as a practical basis for the union of all Christians. They urged this plan as workable, and with much success. Thousands rallied to the support of such a plea and the creeds of human origin, disciplines, and confessions of faith lost heavily, almost irreparably. But many proponents of the Bible as a basis for union began to weaken. They were not entirely satisfied with victories won, and successes already attained. It was a sad day for a worthy cause when they began to lose confidence in their plea and to modify its terms.
2. Leaders began an ignominious retreat with a new slogan: “We cannot unite on the Bible; we must unite on Christ.” An effort was made to exalt the Christ, but to give greater liberty as to whether people respected the teaching of the Bible. This became a matter of indifference. In fact the plain teaching of the Bible was disregarded in much that enters into the service of the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps a greater mistake was never made. Christ can never be honored and exalted apart from his word. When the apostles preached Christ unto the people, they simply preached the gospel of Christ with its facts to be believed, its commands to be obeyed and its promises to be enjoyed. When Philip “went down to the city of Samaria he proclaimed unto them the Christ,” and the people obeyed. And in the case of the eunuch Philip began at the same Scripture and “preached unto him Jesus.” That is he preached unto him the gospel of Christ. This, all the apostles did, in the execution of the great commission. They preached to the people the gospel of Christ, and men and women heard, believed, and obeyed their Lord. The apostles never undertook to exalt the Christ aside from the promulgation and exaltation of his law. Christ is exalted today only when his law is magnified in the life of those who are exercised thereby. All will be united when all take the JBible as their sole guide in religious faith and practice.
3. It has been urged and particularly, in recent times, that the essential thing is the living—that is, a reproduction of the life of Christ—by those who are his professed followers, that “doctrine” amounts to little or nothing; that the living of the life of Christ is everything and that people should not argue and neither should they worry in regard to whether they can agree as to the teaching of Christ, just so they are imitating the life of Christ. Rut it remains after all that the teaching of Christ—the terms, conditions, and requirements of the new covenant—must be at the foundation of all life, and all living, and all character and practice, and experience that is acceptable in the sight of God. This view of the matter tends to reverse the natural and divine order. It is not first a life then the doctrine, but it is first the doctrine and then the life, or rather the doctrine, or teaching of Christ, produces the life and supports the character. Our Savior said to his disciples, “If ye continue in my word, then shall ye be my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” The freedom from sin comes as a result of the knowledge of the truth. People to be united to Christ and in Christ must be first of all united on his teaching, accepting with one voice the terms and requirements of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Union—Desirable and Undesirable
That union gives strength is a proposition generally accepted and one which argues strongly in favor of union. An aggregation of capital gives a stronger financial basis, and in a similar way a combination of smaller forces in any line of moral, political or religious endeavor. “United we stand, divided we fall” has been quoted to encourage unity in political, religious and material affairs. It has its meaning and application. The Savior prayed for the unity of his followers. Paul deplored the divisions that separated a people of the Lord when they should have been united. “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” said the Psalmist. It is manifest, however, that people must be in the Lord in order to be united in the Lord. They must be followers of Christ before they can be united as followers of Chris,t. And herein comes a lesson. The three great divisions of Methodists were in Kansas City for some weeks, about one year ago, working up the details of the consolidation of these Methodist bodies. A united Methodism ought to make a stronger Methodism, and the probability is that no sacrifice, whatever, is being made, morally, or conscientiously in order to bring about this union. They all believe in pedo-baptism; they all accept sprinkling, pouring or immersion so far as the action of baptism is concerned. And in the other fundamentals of Methodism they can agree and unite without sacrifice of scruples. However, who would think that the members of the churches of Christ could conscientiously unite with the Methodists? Their faith and practice differ too widely. The only way for them to unite would be to ignore their differences.
There was a union meeting in Indianapolis, last summer. Some two or three similar meetings have been held. It was a meeting of a few of the "leaders among the churches of Christ,” and of the ‘‘Christian Churches” with a view to union. Now it is, very clear that there is no possible basis for union among these two distinctive people until the obstacles that impel to the separation are removed. What about the organ, the orchestras, the man-made instruments, of music in the worship? What about missionary and other benevolent societies unknown to the New Testament church? What about the principle involved in these matters? What about the attitude that the Bible is not our supreme authority, and that we are under no obligation to be governed by it? Are the churches, of Christ ready to ignore these fundamental matters ?
What was the cause of the separation of the churches of Christ and the Christian Church? Are these causes the same today? Are the loyal churches any more ready to use things unauthorized in the work and worship of the church today than we were fifty years ago? Do the “progressive” brethren love the organ less than they did fifty years ago? Do they love it as much? Do they love it more? Are they willing to give up the .instruments of music and all other things unauthorized in order for peace, unity and harmony? They were not fifty years ago, they have not been during the years since, and I opine that they are unwilling to do so today. Do these “leading brethren” among the churches of Christ, who are talking of “union,” have convictions as in the past? Do they mean they are willing to worship with the use of instruments of music ? Do they mean that they are willing to fellowship others in such departures from the New Testament order of things? If so, it would be easy to unite with the “progressive brethren.” If not, the two bodies of people are just as far apart as ever.
Unauthorized practices among the “progressive Christian Church” constitute the obstacles that separated a happy and powerful people a half century ago. These things constitute the wedge that split the log. Until the wedge is removed, and its advocates cease driving the wedge, the cleavage will continue. Are we to suppose that these good brethren in Indianapolis last summer talked about these things? Did they undertake to remove them? Did they suppose or propose that there could be union without removing them? In short, have we any convictions or conscience in the matter? One good brother who attended the meeting' wrote to me deploringly of the meeting: “Some understood the unity meeting was to be noncontroversial, but some of the folks forced it in that direction and the organ brethren responded in some measure . . . What is the meaning of this? Do these brethren expect the churches of Christ to be blindfolded, stifle their conscience, and enter into something which they do not believe, and which they cannot possibly conscientiously endorse? If such is not the significance of such meetings, what on earth do they mean?
“Understood that the unity meeting” was to be “non-controversial.” What does this, mean ? We could unite with the Methodists in that way. Just take the things upon which we are agreed, say nothing about the things that separate us, “agree to disagree,” and “unite.” It would be just as easy to unite with the “Baptists” as with the “Christian Church.” It could be done just as conscientiously. It could be done just as Scripturally. To me, such procedure is surprising. It is amazing! It is alarming! Most any bodies of people can “unite” if they agree not to touch on differences,, make their “meetings non-controversial,” and sacrifice whatever conviction they have. If the “progressive Christian Churches” are proceeding Scripturally, then they are already united with all people who love and fear the Lord. If they are proceeding unscripturally, an amalgamation of them with the churches of Christ can only be brought about by an inexcusable and unpardonable sacrifice of conviction and of that faith once for all delivered to the saints.
1. Since the unity of the churches of Christ and the unity of the individuals, that go to make up the membership of these congregations, depends on their common acceptance and adoption of the teaching of Christ and of his holy apostles and inspired prophets, he is best promoting unity among us, as the professed people of God today, who is most diligently engaged in teaching what is revealed in the New Testament.
2. Since the acceptance and defense of any false doctrine, untaught in the New Testament, will necessarily result in strife, schism, discord, and division, he is bes,t promoting the unity for which our Savior prayed who fearlessly opposes with tongue or pen, and in life and practice, such false doctrines and false philosophy.
3. Men today who are resisting the encroachment of speculative teaching of certain leaders among us, are doing a great work for the oneness of the people of God in the faith of the gospel, and it is a most cruel and ungodly thing to charge them with being dividers of churches. On the contrary they are offering a most valuable and needed service to prevent division by keeping out of the churches of Christ teaching that is, contrary to the sound doctrine of our Lord and of his inspired apostles. Unity such as Christ approves means the acceptance by ail, of all that he has taught, and the vigorous rejection of ana opposition to all that he has not taught.
Union--Desirable and Undesirable—No. 2
Things taught and practiced contrary to the teaching of Christ, cause division and prevent unity and should therefore be opposed. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us. For yours,elves know how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you”—Paul, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7.
“Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions among you and occasions of stum-bling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, .... and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.”— Paul, Romans 16:17-18.
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather even reprove them.”—Paul, Ephesians 5:11.
“For what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness” —2 Cor. When it comes to the matter of “union,” it is of first importance to consider the ground or basis upon which the desired union is to be consummated. The New Testament is loud in its call for the oneness of the people of God. For this the Savior in love and earnestness prayed, and for this his holy apostles pleaded with members of the body of Christ. There were thousands of religious people about them, in error, and, with them, neither our Lord, nor any inspired man ever commanded, asked, urged, or required his people to unite. They never prayed that they might have fellowship with them, or be united with them. They never asked, or urged, that the disciples • # of the Lord cooperate with those in religious error, and never required that they hold “union meetings,” with them. Peace is sweet, and harmony is delightful, but neither is acceptable to God if obtained at the sacrifice of the unerring and faultless counsels of divine law. The denominational world about us presents a spec-tacle that ilustrates, most forcefully the weakness and foolishness of men, and the strength, power and wisdom of God. They bite and devour one another; they do not fellowship one another; a member of one denomination is not even acceptable as a member of another denomination. They have and hold to doctrines that contradict each other. Yet they come together, hold a “union meeting,” suppress all mention of their differences,, “convert a lot of people,” then let them “join the church of their choice.” But when they have taken their choice of the churches, and lined up with the church of said “choice,” they at once become “taboo to all the other churches”—the ones not of “their choice.” Now all these churches claim to believe the Bible. They could unite on this. And why not? They cannot all unite on their doctrines, creeds and confessions of faith—they can all unite on the Bible, if they would. Then, clearly, they are unwilling to accept the only known way to union. And it means little to them that this only way open to union is God’s, way. For the Bible is the only revelation of the will of God to man. Of course, they tell us these others are on the way to heaven—they are going a different route but will all reach the same place. They can have no fraternal intercourse with them here, no fellowship of the Spirit, no kindly affection. They cannot unite with them here, but plan to do so when they get to heaven!
If the platform is made long enough, and wide enough, and broad enough, of course all could take a s,tand upon it—it matters little about their faith and practice. I talked to a lady who urged that the teaching of my brethren and the position of the churches of Christ is narrow. She thought all the denominations are just groups of Christians and that we ought to be broadminded, and so regard them. Further conversation disclosed that she based her conclusion on their supposed sincerity. She thought that what they believed and taught mattered little, so they were sincere, and thought they were right. She thought it made little difference whether they believed and taught the sound doctrine of Christ or the “doctrines” and commandments of men. Sincerity was the big thing—the one thing needed. I do not know how she knew that all are sincere, that all are even conscien-tious—she did not tell me. That is a measure of knowledge, to which I humbly confess I have not yet attained. I asked her if the Jews are sincere, and if she claimed they are going to heaven in unbelief. They are charitable? Yes. And sincere? Yes.. They often excel others in philanthropies and in benevolences. Well, she thought they were all right, too, that a reward awaited them on the other side, because they are kind, good, merciful, compassionate and charitable. I reminded her that the Jews are infidels—they reject the Lord of Glory, the Redeemer of Men—to reject Christ is to reject God (John 12:44-50). Not to receive Christ, is not to receive God; to reject God is to be without hope. The good woman was like thousands of others. She did not realize that there is a way that seemeth right unto a m,an but the end thereof are the ways of death. She has not learned that though sincerity is important, it is not everything, and that the way of the Lord—not our own—must be followed and his law obeyed if we would receive the promises. But she had a broad platform—one big platform—to include most everybody. But, though popular, and like the broad way that leads to destruction, many go in, on, and stand upon it, there is not in it the basis for the unity of the people of God as set forth in the New Testament.
Union—Desirable and Undesirable—No. 3
“Shall two walk together, except they have agreed?” —Amos 3:3.
The idea, in religious life, of union firs.t, and agree-ment later, is wholly of men. The idea of agreement first and then union is of God. To express it in other words, perfect agreement results in oneness. To be united we must be agreed. People can never be united in the moral, intellectual, or spiritual realm so long as, they are in a state of disagreement. Two business men united in purpose, aim and plan, and in the methods to be employed in the administration of their business, may make a success of the enterprise because there is general agreement. But if in thes,e fundamentals there is disagreement they would better separate, seek other associates, lay out other plans, and proceed along other lines where they may have the security and protection which the safeguards, of harmony assure. The mandates of the Prince of Peace can never be acceptably performed till his people are united, and the world will not be turned from infidelity through the pernicious and destructive influence of strife, discord and confusion. I allow no man to desire more earnestly than myself the oneness of the people of God, nor to strive more devoutly to realize the accomplishment of such oneness. But I question most seriously the methods now conceived and employed by some to bring about what is, called the “union of God’s people.” As long as there is division, people are not alike. They must become alike if they would be united. As long as there is division, people disagree. They must be in agreement before they can be united. And how can they walk together except they be agreed? The Bible simply does, not require thp impossible, unreasonable, unholy and senseless thing of walking- together, or of being united, while in a state of dis-agreement. If we are really concerned about unity, and have the least measure of respect for God’s word, then we are deeply and primarily concerned about the existence of differences and the. removal of them. The things, that bring about separation, that occasion division and strife—these must be considered, and settled, and eliminated. This is the question of first importance. This is the problem that must be solved. And any one is, making a miserable farce of the claim to a possession of the spirit of Christ, and the peace of the gospel, who cannot, in a calm state of mind, and in a sane manner, as becomes the professed follower of the Master, speak plainly, kindly and in love to anyone regarding any religious differences and disagreements that impel them to religious separation, division and strife. The Bible way to bring about unity is clear as the sun in his meridian brightness. It is neglect, or oversight, to say the least of it, on the part of Christians, that they do not apply the plan God has revealed to bring about the desired oneness. Let us here note a few of these in due and proper order.
1. The unity God’s word requires, as set forth above, is to come into a state of agreement. To ignore this is worse than folly. It is to act in defiance of the word of God.
2. The unity contemplated in the New Testament is a oneness, of thought, purpose, belief and practice. He who disregards this sets at naught the plain, unequivocal demands and requirements of God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. He who undertakes to obscure, conceal, cover up, hide or avoid the mention of things, that bring about division—things of disagreement—is, either knowingly or ignorantly, operating against the realization of the very things God desires and that God requires. These are the obstacles that should be approached, attacked and overcome. These are the problems that must be solved. In the work of unifying the people of God, he requires, of us nothing less and nothing else. To say, or by our conduct imply, that we should “agree to disagree” and give no attention to the things on account of which disagreement brings division and strife, is nothing short of rebellion against God and a departure from him.
3. The Savior tells, exactly the sort of unity God expects of us. Let us, note it carefully: “That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ... . that they may be one, even as we are one .... that they may be perfected into one” (John 17:20-23). Here the Savior gives the description of the unity he desires among believers—one as he and his Father were and are one. Did he and the divine Father work together? Were they “agreed”? Could they work together and not be “agreed”? The “union meeting” folks, would have us so believe, apparently. But the Bible says not. If people are united, then, as God requires, they must first be agreed. Otherwise they are not one as God and Christ are one, and this is the only oneness, Christ has prayed for.
4. Paul gives instructions that cannot be misun-derstood—instructions that define that unity alone is acceptable to God: “That ye all speak the same thing” (1 Corinthians 1:10). To disregard this is no part of the unity required by Paul. He who undertakes to urge men to “speak the same things”—the things of the Lord Jesus—the word of God—is a proponent of peace, and a messenger of peace and of the unity of the New Testament. Think about s,ome advocating the musical instruments in the worship, the societies and other innovations and the rest severely opposed to them! Some speaking one thing, and some another—not speaking the same thing! And then—of all things,— not even seeking to uncover the disagreements so that all might see them, eliminate them and be united and walk together.
5. “That ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). They are not of the same mind; they are not of the same judgment; they are not of the same faith; they do not speak the same thing; they are not agreed. Yet they want to go out and walk together in “union meetings,” and elsewhere! And they want the elders, the preachers, and the churches to accept this new doctrine that two can walk together when not agreed! The Only Workable Basis
1. All true, faithful, conscientious Christian people earnestly desire the unity of all of God’s people. Many are praying to this end.
2. There must be a basis for union upon which all can conscientiously stand. No terms or requirements must obtain that will be a bar to effective union. Nothing must be required that cannot be conscientiously entered into by all parties who desire to be united.
3. The opinions of men cannot possibly be a feasible and acceptable basis of union. This, for the simple reason that these opinions are not, never have been, and never can be common to all people. One man’s opinion in regard to any fact or proposition or statement of history often differs widely from others, and other’s opinions differ from his. If you would ask why Nicodemus came to Jesus by night, there would be several different opinions. One iRan might say because he wanted to es,cape the crowd; another to avoid publicity among the chief priests and elders; another in order that he might have a quiet time in which to have his conference with the Savior. Some, or all, of these might be wrong. One might be right, and all the others wrong. It would be impossible to know which is correct and it would be impossible for people to be united on any one of them. So it is with all matters, of the opinions of men in religious matters. They can never be made a practical or effective basis of union.
4. Men’s feelings in religion can never be made an acceptable, feasible and practical basis of union. One man feels satisfied with his condition; while his brother believes and practices, differently in religious matters and feels dissatisfied with the brother’s condition, but perfectly satisfied with his own. One views a course of faith and religious activity with approval and satisfaction and feels perfectly satisfied with it, while another is wholly dissatisfied with such a course. Men’s feelings differ widely and can never be made an acceptable basis for the union of all Christians.
5. No humanly devised creed can pos,sibly be made a general, acceptable or practical basis for the union of all Christians. Methodists accept their “Discipline” ; the Presbyterians “The Confession”; the Lutherans the “Augsburg Confession”; the Church of England their “Thirty-Nine Articles.” But the Methodists do not accept the creed of the high Church of England; the Lutherans would not accept the Methodist creed; the Presbyterians would accept none of the others. Plain New Testament Christians could accept none. Thus we have no basis among all the creeds of the denominational churches for union. It is impossible for all professed Christians to unite on any human creed proposed by any uninspired man or set of men. This all can plainly s,ee. Human creeds cause division and prevent unity.
6. A basis of union that pleases the Lord must be divine. And the Savior prayed that his disciples be united. The church in Jerusalem established by the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in the first century, were united. They had one heart, and one soul, and were of one accord- Union must always be of this type. It is a “unity”—something more than “union.” To bring this about, they must all accept the s,ame creed, the same teaching, the same iaw, the same covenant, the same articles of discipline. The Jerusalem church did this very thing. They had one Christ, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, one church, one law—the law of Christ.
7. From the foregoing we arrive at the one and only possible, practical, feasible, basis for the union of all God’s people that is acceptable to God. All of us can accept the one Christ, the one church and the one law of God, the New Testament, the new covenant. We cannot go to others and unite with them on what we cannot conscientiously accept or believe. All can accept the Bible as their guide, the New Testament as their rule of faith and practice. We plead then, with our friends, that all may come to the Bible alone, accept it, believe it, stand upon it, and be united. Whatsoever is not found therein or cannot be proven thereby, should not be made, binding- upon the consciences of men. Any human creed that contains less than the Bible does not contain enough; a human creed that contains more than the Bible contains too much; and if it contain nothing more nor less than the Bible it would be the Bible. No one should be expected to, or required to, believe less than, or more than, the Bible. Then let us. all accept the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as the only foundation and basis for the unity of God’s people. On this impregnable rock, we can stand united and happy, and thus fulfill the Savior’s prayer that we be one. And with faith, life and conduct well pleasing to God, press grandly and gloriously forward conquering and to conquer, from conquest to conquest, from earth to heaven, from grace to glory, to an ultimate and eternal res,t in the upper world through the all prevailing name of Christ Jesus our Lord.