Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
November 10, 1960
NUMBER 27, PAGE 5,9b,12b

Foolish Preaching On A Plan Of Unity

James E. Cooper, Clarkson, Kentucky

In this, and the next article we shall consider a theme that should be carefully and prayerfully considered by everybody. We are all amazed at the amount of religious division in the world, and some of the world's religious leaders are greatly concerned about it. Nearly all of the leading Protestant journals are giving much attention to a discussion of the Ecumenical Movement. Religious leaders realize that the divided state of religion does much to hinder the fulfillment of the will of God. They realize that religious division keeps some people from accepting the truth of God. They realize that some are infidels because religious division keeps them confused.

The Ecumenical Movement is a movement designed to promote more unity, (a better word would be "union"). The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and similar organizations are concrete efforts toward this aim. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church is urging that all religious people should come into it that religious unity might be achieved. The pope has urged this on several occasions, and many of their leading journals are frequently referring to it.

Several leading Protestant clergymen are endeavoring to lead the various denominations into some sort of union. Henry P. Van Dusen, President of Union Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the April 30, 1952, issue of The Christian Century, entitled, "Theological Education for an Ecumenical Church." He said that the "Ecumenical Movement is the total effort of Christians of varied traditions and loyalties to join forces, in order more adequately to discharge their total task and fulfill their total responsibility throughout the world. The bifocal character of the Ecumenical Movement is suggested in this inclusive definition. It unites the enterprise of Christian missions and the effort for Christian unity." Dr. Van Dusen goes on to say that many look forward to the day "when Christians will acknowledge membership simply in the 'church of Christ,'" and suggests that "in loyalty to that goal, and as a concrete means toward its fulfillment, should we not all now train men for the ministry of the church of Christ, and for no other?"

Dr. Van Dusen urges that Seminaries gear their programs to fit this movement. He recognizes the differences in doctrines and practices among the differing denominations and comments as follows:

"Finally, let us approach the most delicate of all subjects of theological study, the citadel of particularism and prejudice — systematic theology. Theology should present always the universal Christian faith, should consider the most distinctive and most important, and searching for truths lying within essential Christian faith, never the teaching of a particular communion. It should deliberately employ textbooks written by the theologians of all of each principal tradition, pointing to what they themselves the major traditions, as variant expositions of a common theme. It should also acquaint students with the cherished convictions which others have neglected and they have reclaimed. Systematic theology should be so taught, not primarily in order to nourish ecumenical Christians for the next generation, but because that is the true logic of Christian belief. But such teaching would, as a by-product, train ministers for the universal church of Christ."

This statement represents the present Protestant plea with regard to unity in the religious world. It is wholly inadequate, and ignores the one most important element. Because of such, it is "foolish preaching." "Variant expositions of a common theme" merely multiply the confusion already existing. The "one universal church of Christ" which Protestant leaders want to see can only be realized by a return to the "old paths" marked out in the New Testament. They get the idea of "one church" from the Bible. Since they get the idea from the Bible, why not go to the same source for the doctrine and practice essential to the achievement of unity? The Protestant plea is not wide enough, for it does not strike at the tap root of religious division, which is a failure to go back to the Bible and the Bible alone. To plead for unity on any other basis is foolishness.

The Protestant doctrine of "faith-only" nullifies so much of the New Testament doctrine of works that it is unsafe. Also, the belief in "variant expositions of a common theme" denies the oneness of revelation and the "faith once for all delivered unto the saints." Protestantism thus must and will fail in its efforts to unite the world. It has a vague and unrealistic approach to the real basis of unity — the New Testament.

Churches of Christ are not affiliated with this National Council of Churches or any other movement toward unity on any similar basis. Churches of Christ are deeply interested in unity in religion, but not on any basis of compromising the truth of God. We believe we have the only basis for unity, and that is the doctrine of our Lord. 2 John 9 tells us that when we go beyond the doctrine of Christ we have not God. If denominational leaders desire unity, we stand ever ready to unite upon the principles of God's divine Book. We can be united, and be scripturally united, if we would go to the Bible to learn God's will and then obey it.

If all people would go to the Bible for the plan of salvation, one would not teach salvation by faith only and another teach salvation by obeying the commands of the Lord. One would never teach that the sinner doesn't have to be baptized in order to be saved, because Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." There would be no division, for all would accept the New Testament, which teaches faith, repentance, and baptism are all conditions of salvation from alien sins.

If everybody would go back to the Bible for the name we wear in religion, there would not be any names worn that cannot be found in God's Book. We would be content to call ourselves Christians, and to call the church what it is called in the Bible.

If everybody would go back to the Bible for the organization and government of the church, we would find that each local congregation was an independent, autonomous unit. The Bible reveals no ecclesiastical superstructure tying several congregations together. It reveals no synods, associations, conventions, or any other ecclesiastical organizations of such like. Each congregation had, within itself, the organization directed by the Lord. Each congregation had elders, deacons, evangelists and members. The elders were the "bishops," the "pastors," the "overseers," and the "shepherds of the flock." They had the responsibility of overseeing God's flock and seeing that all things were done according to the directions of the Lord. In Acts 14:25 we find that there were elders appointed in every church. The Bible teaches a plurality of elders in every congregation, and does not reveal a plurality of churches under one elder or bishop.

The deacons worked under the oversight of the elders. They were not the rulers of the church, but were merely "servants" as the name implies. In Acts 6 we find that seven men were chosen to "serve tables" that the others could "continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word."

Also working under the oversight of elders were the preachers, or evangelists. The preacher was not a "pastor" or elder of the church, though preachers may sometimes be serving in both capacities. Not all preachers can meet the qualifications for elders listed in 1 Tim. 3.

If all churches would follow the teaching of the New Testament, there would be no division with regard to worship. The Bible reveals five items of worship. (1) Congregational singing (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19), (2) praying (Acts 2:42), (3) preaching or teaching (Acts 2:42; 20:7), giving (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:2), and (5) observing the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11). There were no mechanical instruments of music used or authorized in the New Testament. To be scripturally united we should leave it off and strive to serve Jesus Christ, and not our own pride and vanity.

To be united scripturally we need to do missionary work as taught by the Scriptures. The Bible reveals nothing about missionary societies or sponsoring churches, or any other form of institutionalism. The Bible requires each congregation to be independent and to be its own missionary society. God's organization is sufficient to do all the work God wants the church to do.

We are deeply interested in unity among all religious people, but we cannot agree that the present Ecumenical Movement has the answer. To be one we must lay aside all party names and creeds, and stand upon the Rock of Ages. We must take God at his word, and understand that he means what he says, and says what he means.

(For much of the material in this article, I acknowledge my indebtedness to an article by Clinton Hamilton, appearing in The Preceptor, June, 1952. — JEC.)