Truth. Unity. Both are essential to the Christian (John 8:31-32; 17:20-21). But truth cannot be laid aside in a vain effort to attain unity, for then it becomes union, which is not the same concept. Unity can be defined as “the combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification,” whereas union is “an alliance or confederation of persons, parties….”
When King Ahab of Israel, for example, asked King Jehoshaphat of Judah if he would join him in his fight to take Ramoth Gilead, he answered, “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will be with you in war” (2 Chron. 18:3). Apparently, he meant that Israel and Judah had enough elements in common that they could be united in this endeavor. However, upon his return home from the battle in which he was almost killed and Ahab did die, a prophet of God spoke to him, saying, “Should you help the wicked and those who
hate the Lord?” (19:2).
What was Jehoshaphat thinking? It was true that Israel and Judah had a common heritage: Both were descended from Abraham; all of them together had been delivered from Egypt. They had once been part of a United Kingdom with Saul, David, and Solomon as their monarchs. But when the kingdom split, both kings sinned. However, Jeroboam introduced false worship in the northern kingdom, as described in 1 Kings 12:25-33, which remained until they were taken
captive by the Assyrians. In fact, Jeroboam is said to have driven “Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21).
Rehoboam’s son, Abijah, explained to Jeroboam why he would win the battle in which they were about to engage: Jeroboam’s kingdom had fake priests. They had caused the Levites to return to Judah and made priests of men from just any tribe. They also worshipped the golden calves Jeroboam had set up (2 Chron. 13:8-10). These sins separated the northern kingdom from the southern one, and this division explains why Judah and Israel were spiritually divided.
The two countries could form an alliance, a union, but they could not have unity—because one was wicked and one was righteous.
“We Can and Should Remain Together”
In part one of this series we noted that Wayne Newland had the above-titled article published in The Christian Chronicle in September, 2018. In it, he says we should be united because of “our noble heritage” (31). But Israel and Judah had an even nobler heritage than we’ve ever had, and God did not want fellowship between the two nations. Nevertheless, despite differences, Newland thinks we should have “unity,” which would only be a union, if he succeeded in his quest. Following are a list of things he thinks we can disagree over and still remain “united.”
At the top of his list we find these words: “We can agree that Churches of Christ, even with this broad spectrum among us, are worth preserving as a great brotherhood.” Sorry, but we cannot agree with such a statement. Why not? Because some “Churches of Christ” have added the use of instrumental music to their worship.
One preacher, while visiting Midway, Kentucky, where the first melodeon had been introduced into the worship—thus causing division—made a comment full of insight. When the tour guide said of the melodeon, “Isn’t that a small thing to cause a division over?” he answered, “It’s bigger than the golden calf.” The point is that God authorized neither the golden calves which Jeroboam set up nor the melodeon, organ, or piano. Are we supposed to maintain fellowship and “unity” anyway?
We also cannot agree because some churches now have female preachers and elders. The Scriptures clearly teach male spiritual leadership, and thus those churches have forsaken the Word of God every bit as much as Jeroboam did when he made priests of any tribe instead of the one tribe God authorized. Other examples could be given, but these are sufficient to establish valid reasons for not wanting to be united with just any group who calls itself a church of Christ.
“We can stand strong for the principle of autonomy” is the second recommendation, and brethren ought to agree wholeheartedly with what this statement says explicitly. No one should be trying to tell other churches how to make their decisions; how many divisions in the church have occurred because some brethren overstepped their bounds? But implicitly (taken together with other statements), is not the author saying that if another church adds instrumental music or female elders, we should mind our own business? Such congregations invite us to have fellowship with them, and we must refuse. We are not trying to run them, but we cannot conscientiously endorse them.
One of the most useless tenets of Newland is: “We can examine the principles of our Restoration heritage.” How about this one instead: “We can examine the principles taught in the New Testament”?
What Does This Mean?
“We can avoid being harsh with our brethren who have held to the old paths or who have reached new understandings. We need not tarnish each other with hurtful language.” So, we’re to treat each other like “snowflakes”? Should we avoid saying things, such as that some are trying “to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7)? Today, some continue to pervert the gospel, the nature of the church, worship, and organization. Ought we to call a spade a daffodil?
If this next principle is not a fundamental step in compromise, pray tell, what is it? Newland advocates: “We can study the long-held positions that others have reexamined so that we may better understand those who have reached different conclusions.” Really? One envisions, by means of this description, some doddering old professors who have not examined anything in years versus certain youthful leaders who are really “with it,” like those who gave Rehoboam such great advice (2 Chron. 10).
In the first place, all gospel preachers continually reexamine what they teach because we take seriously the admonition in James 3:1. So, whether it is for a sermon, a class, a manuscript, a video, or a tape, we always want to be certain that the position we set forth comes from the Scriptures. Furthermore, most of us have read books on the subject at hand, not to mention a debate or two. Now what have those “who have reached different understandings of the Word” done? Generally, all that one hears is, “We prayed about it and studied.”
To whom, may we ask, did they pray? The God of the Bible has not changed His Word in 2,000 years. When did instrumental music become acceptable? We know it was not in the first one thousand years after the church was established because worshippers continued to sing a cappella during this time. Did God give a new revelation to authorize it? If so, where is that Scripture? Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18); it is never once found in His New Testament churches. On what basis does anyone conclude it is now all right to use it?
1 Timothy 2:8-14 and 3:1-13 still forbid women leadership roles in the church, such as preachers, elders, or deacons. How does one reach a different conclusion? Not much is plainer than these passages. The only ones to conclude otherwise are those who desired to reach a different conclusion when they opened the Bible to “study.”
Newland suggests that we refocus on evangelism, which implies that we have quit. South Seminole is currently helping two missionaries in the United States and eight overseas. Also, 19 of our members have had special preparation in evangelism. But we will not work with congregations who do not stand for the truth. No unity can exist with those who deny the Scriptures. We ceased supporting one man whom we greatly liked when he began working with Bear Valley. We tried to show him where they erred, but he refused to even discuss the matter, which was greatly disappointing; we thought we knew him better. So, no, we will not be involved in an evangelistic work with those who have set aside the Scriptures.
In Newland’s article, he cites brethren coming together to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Presumably, they met for worship during that time. What if someone presented a message advocating the use of instrumental music or female leadership?
Should everyone let it go because of the good being accomplished, or wouldn’t a brother need to publicly rebuke such a person and explain the truth of the matter? There will always be a latent problem. Suppose some workers came from a congregation that claps hands when singing and the others asked them not do so, but they refused. Then what? Should they continue to work together and worship falsely? Apparently, this scenario did not occur.
Winding Up
To conclude this article, Newland chose three trite suggestions that have never worked but are supposed to involve deep thinking. The first is: “We can agree on fundamentals of the Gospel and not allow perfect agreement on all issues to be the enemy of unity and fellowship.” First, who decides what is fundamental? Is instrumental music one of those? How about leadership in the church? Or does he just mean something in the realm of opinion, such as when worship begins and the order in which things are done? Second, every time someone says, we don’t need perfect agreement, everyone should immediately think of 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul said the brethren should “be perfectly joined
together in the same mind and the same judgment.”
Next, Newland reminds us that not one of us deserved salvation—something every Christian probably already knows. We all do need grace, but that fact does not translate into, “Anything goes.” He adds, “Wherever God has children, we have brothers and sisters.” Yes, but some of those brothers and sisters may have wandered from the truth, thus making them sinners on their way to spiritual death (James 5:19-20). We help these souls by correcting them—not granting approval to their actions.
The concluding argument is that brethren who disagree with us are erring brethren; then he asks, “Is there any other kind?” The point Newland makes is that we are all erring brethren. Is this the philosophy of the New Testament? If so, what verse teaches it? This is nothing more than the sophistry of man. Why did Paul write so many letters to correct brethren? Why didn’t he just say we are all erring brethren and that we should love one another? Why did he tell the Corinthians, for example, that fellowshipping a man living with his father’s wife was “not even named among the Gentiles” (1 Cor. 5:1)? Was he just trying to embarrass and humiliate the poor fellow? And then Paul told the church there to withdraw fellowship from him and others guilty of moral sins. Paul didn’t subscribe to the “we’re all erring brethren” notion.
He did, however, think that brethren should be taught the truth in order that they might repent, which the man in 1 Corinthians 5 apparently did (2 Cor. 7). Now if the disagreements we have are over favorite desserts or sports teams, those things are opinions and irrelevant, but when it comes to New Testament doctrine (clearly taught), then we ought to have unity—not union. This principle was even taught in the Old Testament: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3).