On Monday evening, February 19th, of this year, Mark Henderson of Boulder, Colorado, spoke at the Abilene Christian University lectureship on the subject “People Need the Unity-Committed Church.” The purpose of this (and subsequent articles) will be to evaluate that speech.
This writer freely and openly confesses that he does not know Mark Henderson, nor has he made any effort to speak to him about his speech. [This admission is made that so Henderson’s fellow-liberals can begin clucking their tongues and pointing their fingers immediately without having to inquire.] His speech, however, was made publicly, and the response will likewise be public. He has not sinned against an individual brother, as per Matthew 18:15-17; he has sinned against Christ and the brotherhood by publicly teaching that which is grievously false.
Was there nothing in his speech to agree with? Of course, there was. When he quoted Psalm 133, John 17, or Eph. 4:11, he was correct. In fact, we enthusiastically agree that the unity enjoined in these Scriptures should be emphasized more because many problems and church splits have not arisen over Truth but over opinions on less than crucial matters or on personalities. An earnest commitment to spirituality, love, and unity could prevent many future heartbreaks.
In some of the quotations that follow there may be a reference “our fellowship” or “the American Restoration Movement.” The reader should know that these are terms devised by liberals so that they can better get along with “those who hate the Lord” (see the article entitled “Loving Those Who Hate The Lord”). They refrain from using Biblical terminology such as “the Lord’s church” or “Christians”; so they talk about “our fellowship” as distinguished from the Baptist fellowship. It’s more subtle than just referring to ourselves as a denomination, which is what liberals genuinely believe that we are.
The reference to the American Restoration Movement implies that our current beliefs are based upon Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, to whom Henderson frequently refers. The fact is that, while we have all profited from these men (as we have from Luther and Calvin), we believe that the things we teach and practice today because of what the Bible says, not because of anything those men said. The truth of the matter is that most of us would strenuously disagree with Stone (especially on his view that Jesus was a created being) and Campbell (especially on his acceptance as President of the Missionary Society, an unauthorized concept, and his answer on baptism in the Lunenburg letter).
Implications of the Introduction
Consider what the following words (transcribed from the tape) imply.
“Now I’m not in any way for compromising truth, but we must not ignore the plea for unity because not only will we deprive ourselves of the blessings God attaches to the unity of His people, but we will also diminish our witness before an unbelieving world which desperately needs the unity-committed church.”
Most of us would probably make this statement the other way around: “We are committed to unity, but we must not sacrifice the truth to obtain it.” One wonders where he is heading. [Notice the denominational (and incorrect) usage of the word witness.]
Jesus loves those people, and I have every confidence that He is going to raise up a unity-committed church. The question is whether we will be His partners in that undertaking, or whether He will do it without us.
Perhaps the speaker possesses greater insights than the rest of us do, but upon what is his confidence based that the Lord will raise up a unity-committed church: the Scriptures, current conditions, or something else? And what does He mean by that? And why would we, members of the Lord’s church, be excluded from genuine attempts at unity? And if those who are members of the body of Christ are excluded from whatever Henderson thinks is going to happen, who will be involved in it, non-members? How can those who have never obeyed the truth generate unity? Unity of what?
To be a unity-committed church will require the humility to rethink some things which have been very important to us.
What an arrogant assumption and charge. We cannot speak for Mark Henderson, but the writer rethinks everything each time he studies to teach a Bible class, preach a sermon, write an article, or teach someone the gospel. Can one pay heed to 1 Peter 4:11 and do otherwise? It is truly insulting for the speaker to act as if no one (but him?) ever evaluated anything.
But what does he imagine we so desperately need to rethink: baptism for the remission of sins, correct worship, the boundaries of fellowship, what? We have studied and debated those matters for decades; we believe we know the truth on these matters, but we are always interested in compelling evidence.
The Unity of All Believers
Mark Henderson discussed four things we must do.
First, we are going to have to rediscover a passion for the Biblical doctrine of the unity of all believers.
This is a valid point, depending on how the word believers is defined. The importance of this point was commented on earlier in this article. The speaker did not, however, make many applications of this idea, except to say: “Today, in the name of doctrinal purity, we are facing tensions over differing styles of a cappella music in worship.”
What does he specifically mean: that brethren should not object to solos, choirs, and groups like Acappella Vocal Band? We can maintain unity if brethren will quit insisting on doing that for which there is no Biblical authority. Were brethren commanded to sing solos or to sing to one another (Eph. 5:19)? Were they to pick out the best singers, or was everyone to participate (Col. 3:16)? The purpose for singing is mutual edification. Some brethren prefer to substitute God’s reasons for singing with their own–to please the ear. The New Testament teaches that we are to edify and admonish one another. Some want to go beyond that concept.
Furthermore, the New Testament never says make vocal sounds or music; it says, “Sing.” Those who want to introduce something new and different just because it is new and different should not expect their innovations to remain unevaluated.
The lecturer next made the point that Jesus could have prayed for anything the night He died, but He chose unity. That is true, but it’s not the whole truth. Jesus prayed for several things. Part of the prayer concerned a request for Himself–that He be glorified (John 17:1 & 5).
Next, Jesus began a long prayer for His disciples. Some of the key points are highlighted by the following verses.
“For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that you sent Me” (8).
I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world (15:16).
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (17).
Unity is important (11, 20-21), but the other subjects, including Truth and not being of the world, are also important. It is not as though our Lord prayed for only one item; there were several. And the importance of the disciples having accepted His words (truth) precedes the plea for unity (6-11, 17-21).
Truth undergirds unity. Without it, unity can exist. Atheists, evolutionists, and humanists can be united in error just as those in denominations can be. But Christian unity can not exist unless it is built upon truth.