3.13 - UNITY (No. 3)

UNITY (No. 3) Your presence indicates a fine interest in those things I have been discussing in your midst. I am glad to address you again along the same line of Christian Unity.

I read to you from Psalms 133:1-3 : "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard; that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forevermore."

If I know myself, every utterance shall be prompted by a sincerity worthy of the subject presented.

I verily believe, friends, that the greatest hindrance to the acceptance of the gospel of Christ is a divided state in the religious world. I ought to consider most earnestly: Am I fostering division? Am I promulgating something not in the Bible which my friends and fellows cannot conscientiously accept? If so, I am treading on dangerous ground, and have a fearful responsibility resting upon me.

I wish every person in this audience would take all introspective view, and ask himself the question: "Am I practicing something untaught? Am I boosting something unknown to the Bible? Do I stand for that which is a bar to the unity for which the Master prayed?" When such is discovered, the honest soul will be glad to give it up. The partisan spirit, the biased and prejudiced individual will hold on to it, regardless, and thus subject himself and those who might be influenced by him to hell itself, rather than admit any error and from it turn away.

I have here all extract from the Nashville Banner of March 22nd, this year. In the department of "Everyday Queries," answered by Dr. Parkes Cadman, there is this question from Bridgeport, Connecticut: "Why don’t the churches of America get together and stop their waste of manpower, money and religious influence? I am not a churchman, but I believe I should be if it were not for the useless divisions that exist among men and women who profess to believe in the Lord."

I do not know who asked that, but it is a sensible question. It hits the nail squarely on the head. I believe it is about the sentiment of a great number of sober-minded citizens all over our land.

Dr. Cadman answers by saying: "Much that you say is undeniable, but church union by force would be as impossible and as wrong as enforced marriage by the state." Of course, I have to agree with that also. A union brought about by force, or by the passage of a law, would not be worth the time spent in writing it upon the books of our state. That is not the principle underlying Christianity. Unity can never be brought about as a forced matter. It can only come by our getting the consent of our minds that we are going to take the Bible just for what it says; that we are not going to be anything, preach anything, or practice anything, other than that clearly stated therein.

Now when we definitely decide to assume that kind of all attitude, a unity is possible, but if we maintain a partisan spirit, and are determined to be unyielding, regardless of whether a thing is a matter of faith or a matter of opinion, then our hopes for such a glad day are largely blighted. The devil will march triumphantly on with that solidity which ought to characterize the people of our Lord.

I want to speak for a while about the church, and see if we cannot come to a better understanding of its meaning. If possible, I want to eliminate the idea that the church about which I read in the Bible is a denomination. It is not. And one great step will certainly be gained if we can differentiate in our minds the church which Jesus died to establish, and the denomination organized by men uninspired. The word church comes from the Greek word "ecclesia," which means all assembly, separated or called out, regardless of the character or kind of all assembly it is. The word, therefore, of itself does not carry any sacredness or holiness at all. I have attended political conventions in this very auditorium. They were assemblies, but I would not accuse them of being either sacred or holy. But the word has come to refer to that assembly under the authority of Christ, and in which his spirit dwells.

Now I think from some passages, you will be able to see why this term so aptly applies. In John 15:18-19, there are these words: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." That thing called the "church" is in the world, but it is not of the world. It is not even on good terms with the world. And there is no love lost between them. The church of God hates worldliness. The world hates the things of the church. Loyal, faithful disciples of the Lord were never loved by the disciples of the devil. The church is being led by the Son of God; the world is being led by the devil himself. These two armies are striving, the one against the other. They are the exact opposite. Each one is the perfect antithesis of the other. Therefore, if I am under Christ, and a member of the church, I am called out of the world, and am separated from it, in that I partake not of its evil. I am under the marching orders of Him whom the world hated long before it did His followers. My friends, God’s church upon this earth is God’s people wherever they are, and whosoever they may be. I wish that I could get that across to you in such definiteness and concreteness as I now have in mind For emphasis, I repeat it: God’s church is God’s people who dwell upon this earth. Every child of God, therefore, is a member of the church of God.

I read to you from 1 Corinthians 1:1 : "Paul called to be all apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth."

Every Christian in Corinth was then incorporated in the term church. That wasn’t written to some little religious body, or some partisan sect. It was addressed to God’s people, hence unto God’s church in Corinth.

I call attention to 1 Peter 2:9 : "Brethren, ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, all holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness unto his marvelous light." Who are those that constitute a peculiar people? Who are those that go to make up a royal priesthood? Who is that chosen generation, and that holy nation?

It is God’s people, God’s church. So, then, the church of God is big enough, broad enough, comprehensive enough, to embrace every child of God on earth. I would be one of the last to come into your midst, and even intimate that the institution bought with the blood of Jesus Christ, and filled with his spirit, did not comprehend and embrace every Christian in all the wide world.

If you have, ladies and gentlemen, in all candor, done the very thing that Christ bids you do, Brother Hardeman believes that makes you a member of the family of God. Many of my friends may have done this very thing, and then have gone and joined some kind of a church or organization for which there is absolutely not one word of authority in all the Bible. Herein lies our trouble. It is the business of "joining" that has brought division and parties into our midst.

Denominational names, creeds, and peculiarities, which many honest people cannot accept, are responsible for that divided state which unfortunately characterizes us as a people. Not only is the church of God made up of God’s people, but it is God’s tabernacle. Hear Paul in Hebrews 8:1-2 : "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such all high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens: A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." The context shows conclusively that the tabernacle is that spiritual building known, in another place (1 Corinthians 3:9) as God’s building, hence the church of God is God’s people; it is God’s tabernacle; it is God’s building. But that is not all. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 : "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? and that the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Christians sustain their relationship to God, not by any process of joining something, but by virtue of the fact that they are Christians. That fact of itself makes them God’s people, God’s husbandry, God’s house, God’s tabernacle, that peculiar people, royal priesthood, holy nation, and chosen generation. The church of God is, in addition, styled "all habitation of God." In Ephesians 2:22, Paul says, "In whom ye also are builded together for all inhabitation of God through the Spirit." The church is, therefore, a tabernacle, a temple, a spiritual house made up of lively stones. It is composed of men and women born again, who have been translated out of darkness into the marvelous light of the Son of God. Surely we can appreciate the statement which Stephen made when he said, Acts 7:48: "Howbeit, the Most High God does not dwell in temples made by the hands of men." The church of God is not a material thing. With all the wealth of Tennessee, and the great material that might be gathered all over the earth, you could not out of that build the house of God. You could not build the church of God. When Paul stood on the crest of Mars Hill and looked over the classic city of Athens, with its multiplicity of temples in which they gloried, he saw they had the wrong idea, and he emphasized Stephen’s statement by saying (Acts 17:24): "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands."

Hence it is out of order for me to talk about some building out here on your streets as God’s church.

I now call attention to the use of the word church as it applies in the Bible. First, there is such a thing in the Bible as a house church. In 1 Corinthians 16:19, Paul says: "Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house." In the home of Aquila and Priscilla there were Christians, and Paul said that they constituted a church in the house of those mentioned.

Wherever Christians dwell together they can properly be styled a church. Every Christian is included in it.

Second, there is such a thing mentioned in the Bible as a city church. I have read to you 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, which I repeat: "Paul called to be all apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth."

How many are embraced in that? Every Christian in Corinth. If Paul were to write a letter to the church of God at Nashville, who do you think would be included in it? Every Christian in this city would be included and thus addressed.

Every child of God in this city is a part of the church, and, therefore, the obligation to lay aside everything tending toward a partisan spirit, rests upon him the more heavily.

Third, there is such a thing as Christians in a district which make up the church in that section. Hence, the church embraces every Christian in a certain territory or region.

Fourth, the church is used in a general, unlimited, universal sense. Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." In this and other passages the church comprehends and embraces every child of God on earth. When some of my friends charge that Hardeman thinks only those who meet at a certain place are members of the family of God, they misjudge that concerning which they speak.

I believe that any man in Nashville, or elsewhere, who has heard the gospel, who has believed it with all of his heart, from every sin has turned away, has acknowledged the Christ, and been buried in his name, trusting in him, looking to him and relying upon him, has become a Christian. You may well ask, Why am I pleading as I do? I am urging all who become Christians to be one and to have no divisions among us. In private talks I have been able to get numbers to admit there is no authority for many things they do, and yet they hold on tenaciously. For instance, I want you to cut loose from some little man-made book, or creed. I do not believe in it and you admit it is purely human and unnecessary. Now let me ask, Why not discard it and let both of us stand together on the Bible alone? Who becomes responsible for division in this case? Surely it is the one who holds on to that which he admits is unauthorized.

Again, you wear some human name. Now, grant that both of us are Christians. I cannot conscientiously be a Campbellite or a Mormon or a Lutheran. Therefore, what is it that divides? It is that determination on the part of my fellow-Christian to wear some name other than, or in addition to, that of the Christ. The sin of division lies at his door.

I propose to be just a Christian—that is all. I think every man on earth can be the same thing, and have no offense attached whatsoever. I think the name Christian is big enough and broad enough and wide enough for all of God’s people, and with it they should be content. The following from Chas. Spurgeon and Jno. Wesley are in order. Spurgeon said: "We love Christ better than a sect, and truth better than a party, and so far are not denominational. He who searches all hearts knows that our aim and object are not to gather a band about self, but to unite a company around the Saviour. Let my name perish, but let Christ’s name last forever. In harmony with this, Wesley said: "Would to God that all party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have long divided the Christian world were forgotten and that we might all agree to sit down together, as humble, loving disciples, at the feet of our common Master, to hear His word, to imbibe His spirit, and to transcribe His life in our own." My friends, let’s lay aside all party names that foster division and wear the name Christian only. Let’s do away with every human creed and accept God’s word only. "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) What more do we need? What more can he say? A good lady called me this afternoon on the telephone, and asked why it was that the people, who styled themselves the Church of Christ, oppose instruments of music? I do not know her name and, possibly, never saw her, but she impressed me as being perfectly sincere and anxious to learn all she could. Her question was wholly in order, and the obligation rests upon me to answer. She promised to be present tonight and, hence, a word along that line.

About the beginning of the nineteenth century, the great Restoration Movement was inaugurated. Its object was to break away from denominationalism and human parties, and to persuade all Christians to stand together upon the word of God. Its slogan was: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is our only rule of faith and practice."

Time rolled on, and that sentiment grew. People flocked to such all announcement, until they numbered quite a few upon this earth.

I regret to say that, in the course of time, division came among them.

I want to tell you about how it came to pass. First, there grew a different attitude toward the word of God, and the Bible was preached with a different conception and from a different point of view.

Some in that movement began to look upon the Bible as a book for general guidance only. They came to believe that man was left free to be governed, in the details of worship and service, by his sanctified common sense. Whatever was not specifically forbidden was considered permissible, provided it suited their fancy. Whatever was not wrong in itself, and not directly condemned by the Bible, could be used in the worship, if a majority of the congregation desired. Following that sentiment and attitude, human societies were organized, mechanical instruments were introduced, and almost every kind of sectarian practice was accepted. That element drifted into a denomination and has become one among the many.

Others in that movement, true to the platform first announced, assumed this attitude toward the Bible: they looked upon it as a complete guide in all of the affairs that pertain to worship and service to God. To them, whatever the Bible does not authorize, whatever it does not teach, and whatever it does not specify, is not a part of God’s will. They refrain from introducing into the service of God anything for which there is no authority.

Friends, I do not know that I can present these lines of divergence any clearer than by these two general statements. One of them asks the question: "Where does God prohibit it?" The other asks: "Where does God teach it?" One of them draws the conclusion that if God does not prohibit a thing, he can do as he wishes. The other one concludes that if God does not teach a thing, he has no right to do it. Thus, you can begin to see the lines of cleavage.

It is agreed by all that the first thirty years after the establishment of the church was the most fruitful missionary activity this world has ever known, notwithstanding the great advancement, and facilities in material things at present.

It is further agreed that there was but one institution during that thirty years through which missionary activities were carried on. That institution was none other than God’s great missionary society, which was the church. With the passing of time, with the growing sentiment of denominationalism, even in the ranks of restoration, what happened? A missionary society of human origin was organized upon this earth, with the result that it supplanted the church, took charge of missionary affairs, directed the missionary, received his report, made him amenable to the society and not to the church.

Those, therefore, who were not ready to be led away into human devices, and into organizations unknown to the Bible, had a right to oppose and to declare this a departure from the sacred oracles and from the original movement.

You organize one society, and that gives you the right to organize two. You organize two, and the third is in order, and there is no end to it. Therefore, those who had wandered away from the old paths found themselves submerged in a multiplicity of societies that made the denominational world ashamed. It came to pass that the denominations were almost forced to take a patent on everything they invented, lest the digressives might incorporate it, and claim it as their own. I thank God that many of them now are sick of societies and are advocating their abandonment.

What else? Everybody knows, who knows anything about it at all, that in the New Testament, when the church of God met to hymn his praises, they sang and made melody in their hearts. And it has been but a few recent years that our digressive friends have had the courage to affirm that the Bible teaches the use of mechanical instruments. They got rather brave a few years ago and, in one of their human conventions, passed a resolution to discuss their contention all over the State of Tennessee. Their courage was admirable, but their judgment was poor. After a brief experience the matter dropped and nothing more is now heard of such a desire. My objection to mechanical instruments is not out of bitterness toward them; not because I think there is harm in the instrument, per se, but the objection is simply this: I have adopted the principle and pledged myself to the platform of not going beyond that which the Bible authorizes. My digressives brother asks me: "Where does the Bible prohibit it?" I answer, "Where does the Bible authorize it?" Christians walk by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7). No man can use mechanical instruments and walk by faith. By searching the scriptures you will find that God does not authorize it, does not command it, does not demand it, and that there is no example in all apostolic history for such a practice. The man who is faithful and loyal to God’s word will not go beyond it. "Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." But there are people just as honest as I am, who say: "If the Bible does not condemn it and you like it, what is wrong in it?" Let me answer by presenting a parallel. If the Bible does not prohibit the burning of incense, in so many words, and if I love to smell it, as do my Catholic friends, on what ground can you object? I am frank to say that I do love to smell the incense a-burning. I sat for two hours in old At. Peter’s in the city of Rome, and there enjoyed the odor of the incense continually diffused throughout that great audience. I sat there, and asked myself: "Where does God say, ’Thou shalt not burn incense’?" I could not think of a single passage in the New Testament. There is none. Is there anything wrong in the act itself? No. I asked, "Do I like it?" Of course, I do. Then why not go back to America and introduce the burning of incense? I can, on the very same ground, and by the very same argument that my brethren in error introduced mechanical instruments. They stand on the same parallel.

If there be a difference, it is simply this: I want you to see it. The instrument of music appeals to the auditory or hearing nerve. The burning of incense appeals to the olfactory or the smelling nerve, and the difference between the instrument and the incense is just the difference of nerve. That is all. Which nerve do you wish to satisfy? If you want to gratify, with pleasing strains and luring symphonies, the auditory nerve, then don’t object to the Catholic when he wants to indulge or delight his smelling nerve, unless you think more of your hearer than you believe he ought to think of his smeller.

So, in the spirit that I trust actuates one moved with the anxiety for the unity and the oneness of people led by the Bible, I have not hesitated to ask my friends in error, "Why don’t you, for the sake of unity, give up that which you yourselves admit is wholly non-essential and unauthorized, and let us stand together once more?" But when a man departs from the word of God there seems to be no end, and no telling where on earth he will go.

I charge, candidly and respectfully, however, that my digressive friends have gone so far that they have become as much a denomination as any other on this earth. They have forsaken the principles of the Bible; they have fled the Restoration movement; and they are divided among themselves over matters once considered fundamental.

They are disturbed over whether or not the pious unimmersed shall be admitted into the fellowship. Some of them have gone back upon the doctrine of baptism—immersion— as all act of obedience to God, and as a condition of pardon. Hence, on foreign fields, and even in this land, they have become so sweet-spirited and so anxious to be one among their sister denominations, that they will receive members into their fellowship who have not been buried with the Lord Jesus Christ in baptism. They will blend in with almost any religious body—even those whose doctrine they do not believe. Therefore, to me, they are wonderfully inconsistent, even hypocritical in the act. My brethren and friends, I allow no man to be more courteous than I try to be. I have tried to be polite and civil toward all men. But I want to tell you, when it comes to a matter of faith and a matter of conviction, I would not yield one inch to gratify any soul I have ever known.

If the time has come that men cannot speak forth their convictions, we are in a bad way, religiously, governmentally, socially, and otherwise.

I have mentioned to you some of the things that have marred the peace and happiness and unity of the body of Christ. I call upon you who are here to give serious consideration to these things. If you have named the name of the Lord, and have done that which Jesus Christ demands, and are willing to come down the aisle and give to me your hand on the principle and with the idea that you are going to accept a platform, every plank of which is found in the book of God, I pledge to put my hand in yours, and if I am not already on it, I will get there the very minute you point out wherein I am lacking. But some may say, "You want everybody to come to you." No, that is not it. I just want you to get rid of things purely human, so that I can come to you. I will do every inch of the coming, if you will throw away those barriers that stand as a hindrance to that unity for which the Saviour prayed. If this be the will and wish of any, the invitation is now extended.