Unity -- A By-Product
"From Anson I went to Abilene, and spent one day with Brother W. L. Gibbs, editor of the Word and Work, a religious paper of two years' standing . . . Brother Gibbs is laboring to overthrow the fatal mistake of Campbell to unite all Christians on the Bible. He claims it has resulted in a human union of many sectarians, unscripturally taught, unscripturally converted, and unscripturally baptized, until the mixture has become so corrupt within itself that it cannot stand. Our aim should be to persuade men and women to become Christians by the Bible, and then the union will stand." (J. D. Tant — Texas Preacher, page 176.)
The problem posed in the above quotation has plagued the Restoration Movement almost from the first days of its inception. Indeed, this fundamental spiritual schizophrenia was a potent factor in bringing about the division between the Church of Christ and the Christian Church in the last century, although probably neither group was at the time very much aware of what it was. The one element (the Christian Church) was primarily interested in uniting the divergent elements of Christendom, and felt that "the Bible only" offered the best possible hope for such unity; the other element (the Church of Christ) was primarily interested in "restoring New Testament Christianity", and realized that the only way to do that was by a strict adherence to the New Testament. Unity, of course, was desirable; but it would come as a by-product of all believers' acceptance of the Bible as the final authority in religious matters.
As the passing years have lengthened into decades, these two widely separated objectives have come more and more into focus. And as the objectives have become clarified in the thinking of both groups the divergence between them has grown ever wide and wider. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) have gradually magnified their aim of a united Christendom, and have correspondingly changed and adapted their methods of achieving such. In Campbell's day they felt that such unity could be achieved by emphasizing the Bible only as their creed and standard of authority. Gradually losing faith in that method as the years went by, they began to minimize the idea of Bible authority, and have finally come to be the most liberal and "broad-minded" of all the denominations. As of now the liberal Disciples of Christ denomination has no basic convictions at all; their only plea is for "religion", and the Buddhist and Mohammedan and the sincere nature worshipper probably has about as much chance for heaven (in their thinking) as has the orthodox Christian.
The Church of Christ, meanwhile, has turned more and more toward a strict adherence to the Bible, with little thought or effort toward "uniting" the sects of Christendom. Faithfulness to New Testament teaching came first; and if unity followed, it would be present because all the people concerned were first in fellowship with God. If men were in harmony and unity with God, they would automatically be in harmony and unity with one another.
Historically, both groups have found that each of them has had members who tended more toward one objective than toward the other. That is, the Disciples of Christ have come to an open rupture in their ranks because a considerable number of them (perhaps nearly half a million) have not been willing to go "all the way" in compromising with liberalism and modernism in their leaders. They have still sought to cling to some vestige of "Bible authority" for their practices. And, on the other hand, the Churches of Christ, have had a considerable number who have increasingly been willing to "water down" and weaken the principle of "Bible authority" in order to achieve their objectives and attract greater numbers of followers.
This problem is often seen on a congregational level. Some will insist that "unity" is to be prized above every other thing, and will plead that it is wrong and sinful for the congregation to be divided, regardless of what may be involved. Ironically, it is usually this very element which is pushing some project or promotion calculated to divide the body, and while pleading for "unity" on the one hand will ruthlessly ride rough-shod over the conscience of their objecting brethren on the other hand. Others insist that fidelity to God must come first, that no unity can be had with any person or any group if that person or group is in rebellion against God.
We think it not without significance that in the very passage in which unity is enjoined along with peace — "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" — the basic requisites for such unity and peace are set forth: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father is all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." (Eph. 4:4-6.) As long as an individual accepts these basic truths, and walks in them, he is in harmony with God; he then is automatically, and for that very reason, in harmony with every other person on this earth who is also in fellowship with God. But when a person departs from these truths, he breaks the harmony with God, and consequently is not in fellowship with all those who do have fellowship with God.
In all these matters it should be evident that "unity", so appealing and so winsome, is not a primary objective for the child of God; it is a by-product, coming without effort and without failure to all those who walk with God.
— F. Y. T.