Union Without Unity
Our great neutralist editor, Reuel Lemmons, writes another editorial in the Firm Foundation, December 13, 1960, on his favorite theme, "the middle of the road." "Faith and Fellowship," is the title; but in substance it is a plea for union without unity. His anxiety and search for a neutral position with reference to church supported human institutions causes him to wander from side to side and sometimes leads him completely off the main course into side paths. He has done this as he seeks for unity of all persons who have believed and have been baptized, apparently irrespective of what they stand for in church function and organization. Lest it be thought that is being misrepresented, the following paragraph is given from the editorial:
"But there is considerable point in our pleading for the unity of baptized believers. It is understood that unity will never be had upon any group's opinion, for opinion, like error, can never be universal. Neither will unity be obtained upon identical knowledge or identical understanding of the Scriptures because 'all have not the same knowledge,' and not even the same capacity to learn. The basis upon which most brethren plead for unity among us today is non-existent and impossible of attainment. Maybe if would be good for all of them to quit contending for this way or that way, or my way or your way, and all of us go back to, and restore in the world, the unity that is simple faith in Jesus and simple obedience in baptism that characterized the great commission."
Seven Cardinal Points
The New Testament specifies seven cardinal points involved in unity. (Eph. 4:3-6) Our erudite editor has formulated only two in his constitution upon which unity is to be based. He has specified only faith and baptism; and as the paragraph is studied one is made to wonder if he does not mean faith in a very limited sense. Why does he not insist upon the other five? Would that make fellowship too hard for some whom he hopes to gain?
Some of the denominations have recently met to discuss a protestant union, and, of course, they discussed a platform upon which such a union could be formed. They did not even suggest that the New Testament, wholly and solely, be the constitution. Neither does brother Lemmons. He has only two planks in his platform. Where is the rest of the New Testament? The denominational convention was planning another human creed to be added to the hundreds already in existence. As brother Lemmons advocates that the grounds of fellowship be limited to these two items only, he has added another such creed to the list.
Opinion, as he states in the paragraph, can never be the basis of unity. But in the very paragraph where he has so affirmed, he has also promulgated an opinion as the very basis of unity. He has opined that the only test of fellowship be "simple faith in Jesus and simple obedience in baptism." His paragraph sounds like Ketcherside and Garrett of today, the liberals of the last century and the Christian Church of succeeding generations. It certainly does not sound like the New Testament.
Can We Understand It Alike?
Sectarians have justified their divisions by the theory that we cannot understand the Bible alike, that one has just as much right to his idea about it as another. According to our re-reformer, editor Lemmons, we have wasted thousands of sermons in refutation of that doctrine; for he now admits that we cannot "have the same knowledge." Apparently the passage to which he referred in his quotation was 1 Cor. 8:7. The word same, however, is not in the common English versions. That word indicates that there are other knowledges. Brother Lemmons, is there another knowledge of revealed things? If we cannot have identical knowledge because we have not the same knowledge, as you say, how many knowledges are there? Those saints referred to in 1 Corinthians did not have the knowledge. There is no limitation of another knowledge. They needed to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Brethren, some at least, have not been preaching opinion and have not been wasting their time insisting upon an impossible unity. The things pertaining to unity, even that of the very letter he was writing, can be understood, for Paul said: "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words; whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:3, 4)
Observe All Things Commanded
Brother Lemmons limits his terms of fellowship to the faith and baptism of the great commission. Is it possible that he honestly forgot that there is another important item in the great commission, even besides repentance? It says; "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:20) Is this not just as important a condition of fellowship and unity as are "simple faith and simple obedience in baptism?" If a man who believes and has been baptized commits adultery, are we to retain him in fellowship? No. (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) But with our "middle of the road" editor's credo such an adulterer must be accepted. Shall we retain in our fellowship those who believe in and practice the use of instruments of music in worship? No, they have not Christ. (2 John 9-11) But the position taken by brother Lemmons will return into bosom fellowship all those of the Christian Church, except those who have been received without baptism.
Will brother Lemmons confirm unity with those who believe and have been baptized but who practice evangelism through the missionary society? We think that he is not ready for that just yet; but the kind of idea expressed in the editorial under review calls for that very thing. It is fervently hoped that he did not mean what he said; and that when he realizes the import of his statement he will retract it. This came, evidently, as a result of his desire to placate, and compromise with, those who are devising their own human elements of church work and who are building their own human institutions through which the churches are expected to function in this day of our Lord. Perhaps as no other editorial has done, this one has shown that they are opening wide the gate for all conceivable innovations. Indeed, it has great significance, even if it expresses the attitude of the most liberal brethren, much less the attitude of those who are trying to take a popular neutral position.