|
Unity In Diversity - Part 1
By Wayne Partain
|
||
|
When Christ says "Thy word," He refers to the will of God which is
revealed by express statement, command, approved apostolic example and necessary
inference. This "word" is the will of God, the truth, the gospel, the doctrine
of Christ, the New Testament. In Ephesians 4:3-6 Paul speaks of the unity of the Spirit: "being diligent to
preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one
Spirit ... one hope ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all."
The "unity of the Spirit" is the unity of which the Holy Spirit is the Author,
which is taught by the Holy Spirit, the unity effected or made possible by the Spirit
through His revelation. The "one faith" of which Paul speaks is the objective faith, the gospel,
the truth, the word to which Christ refers in Jn. 17:8, 14. This is not your faith or my
faith, but the objective faith. This is the faith which a great company of Jewish priests
obeyed (Acts 6:7). This is the faith of which Paul speaks in Gal. 3:25, "now that
(the) faith has come we are no longer under a tutor." This is the faith of which Jude
3 speaks: "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints." This is "the doctrine of Christ" of which the apostle John speaks in his
second letter (2 John 9), "Whoever transgresses (goes onward) and does not abide in
the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both
the Father and the Son." "Whoever goes onward" goes beyond the boundary of
the revealed will of God. This refers to the doctrine taught by Christ (compare
"doctrine of the Pharisees," "doctrine of Balaam", "doctrine of
the Nicolaitans," "apostles' doctrine"). Therefore, we must be united in teaching "the faith," the doctrine of
Christ. What Is Unity In Diversity?
It is the heart and soul of denominational churches, for even though they have
their own creeds, at times they lay aside their differences and join together for crusades
and other ecumenical activities to feign a united front against the world. However, all
they prove by their unity in diversity is that it doesn't really matter what they believe.
They say that everyone has a right to his own interpretation of the Scriptures, can join
the church of his choice or join no church at all. Unity in diversity reflects a strong desire for fellowship, but a fellowship with
no boundaries. This desire for fellowship is a major driving force in religion. Even
"Freethinkers" want "church" fellowship. On July 28,2000, the
following article appeared in the papers with the dateline, Irving, Texas,
"Free-thinking fellowship. Atheist church services full of familiar elements."
It tells about the "Church" of Freethought, a "church" that doesn't
believe in God. They are a "church of unbelievers" that misses church
"fellowship." This shows how important "fellowship" is to many
people, religious or otherwise. These ex-church-goers don't miss God or Christ, or the
Bible or hymns (they sing folk songs) or the Lord's Supper, but they miss
"fellowship." They say "We've rejected all other gods plus one more,"
but "we missed the chance to get together and fellowship". Actually all human
churches are freethinkers; that's why they are human churches. Many of our brethren are
aping them in their cry for "unity in diversity." They want
"fellowship" without the doctrine of Christ. The New Unity Movement In the 1960's and 1970's there was much talk among brethren about a "new
unity movement" to unite "all segments of the Restoration Movement." These
various segments included the Christian church (with their missionary societies,
instrumental music, social gospel, etc.), premillennial churches of Christ (who say the
kingdom has not come but that Christ will establish it when He comes the second time and
will reign on earth for 1000 years), institutional churches of Christ (with their
sponsoring churches, church-institutions, social gospel, etc.), the
no-class/no-communion-cups churches of Christ, etc. The NUM promoted unity in diversity of con-flicting and contradictory
doctrines/practices (just as the denominations do), for they promoted "unity"
with all these different groups without requiring that they give up their unscriptural
doctrines and practices. One of the main arguments made by the proponents of the "New Unity
Movement" was that no one has perfect knowledge, that we are all ignorant of some
things, that we all make mistakes, and that the grace of God covers such sins of
ignorance and weakness (with special emphasis on doctrinal ignorance) and,
therefore, that lines of fellowship should not be drawn over differences with our
"brethren" of the Restoration Movement, but that we should have unity in
diversity. Only a moment's reflection makes one realize that they would not stop with having
fellowship with just the various segments of the Restoration Movement, but that this would
naturally lead to having fellowship with all the denominations - and that is exactly what
has happened in many cases. Some Of The Favorite Texts 1 Cor. 2:2, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ,
and Him crucified." In chapter one of this letter Paul had exposed the folly of
worldly wisdom and in chapter two says that by contrast he would only preach Christ, but
this text is re-interpreted to say that Paul exalted the person of Christ and played down
the doctrine taught by Christ and the apostles. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To preach Christ is to preach not only about Him personally, but also His authority and
His doctrine. Compare, for example, Acts 8:5,12 "And Philip went down to the city of
Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ ... But when they believed Philip preaching
good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized, both men and women." So while it is extremely important to preach all that
the Scriptures reveal about Christ, we do not really "preach Christ" unless we
proclaim His authority, His plan of salvation, His kingdom or church, etc. 2 Cor. 3:6, "who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of
the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." When
we read this chapter it is obvious that Paul calling the law of Moses the ministration of
death or the letter that kills, with which he contrasts the Spirit-revealed gospel which
makes alive, but this is re-interpreted to mean that we should uphold whatever is
considered the general spirit or intention of the Bible, and never mind what the text
actually says. Luke 9:49,50 "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out
demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us. But Jesus said
unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against you is for you." One brother
wrote, "When I meet a man whose faith is in the cross and whose eyes are on the
Savior, I meet a brother." (Max Lucado, A Dream Worth Keeping Alive - Liking The
Fruit But Not the Orchard). He applies this to those of us who refuse to fellowship
the denominations. He says we build fences and fences have gates and hence gatekeepers who
shut people out of the church. But obviously this one who cast out demons in Christ's name
was a disciple of Christ. Otherwise he would have been like the Jews of Acts 19:13-15 who
attempted to cast out a demon in Jesus' name and were overpowered by the demon. Obviously, then, the purpose of those who promote "unity in diversity"
is to broaden fellowship, even with denominations. The proponents of unity in diversity
are not interested in Bible unity, the unity for which Christ prayed. They are not
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, but rather are promoting
tolerance of and fellowship with sin and error. Unity In Diversity On A major cause of the more recent emphasis on "unity in diversity" has
been the determination on the part of some non-institutional brethren to fellowship other
non-institutional brethren who teach and practice error regarding divorce and remarriage. Consider briefly the "strange doctrine" being taught on
marriage-divorce-remarriage by some of our non-institutional brethren: (1) that the adultery of Mat. 5:32; 19:9 is not literal but figurative, i.e., an
adulteration of the marriage contract. As Mike Méndez of California taught in El
Salvador, "this adultery is not committed in bed." (2) that the guilty party (the one who has been put away for fornication) is free
to remarry - and, of course, if the guilty party can remarry, anyone can - which is the
general idea. (3) that alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ regarding
marriage-divorce-remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) - in other words, since the alien does not
agree with this teaching of Christ and does not want to have anything to do with Christ's
covenant, this teaching doesn't have anything to do with him. (4) that a Christian deserted by an unbelieving spouse is free to remarry (1 Cor.
7:15). According to this strange doctrine marriage is bondage or servitude. (5) that baptism cleanses marital relations even though the couple living in
adultery continues in that relationship. They don't bother to explain why baptism doesn't
cleanse the polygamous relationship. (6) that those living in adultery should remain as they are because Paul says (1
Cor. 7:20), "Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called."
But look at context; the "calling" to which Paul refers is not
marriage-divorce-remarriage, but slavery and circumcision. (7) that all divorced people free to remarry, which is precisely the bottom line
of all these positions. The point of this article is that "unity in diversity" advocates want us
to have fellowship with all the non-institutional brethren who teach and practice these
errors. Bear in mind one important point: We are talking about brethren who supposedly reject
these errors, but still insist that the non-institutional brethren who teach and practice
these errors should be fellowshipped. Romans 14 has been misused in connection with this controversy. I realize
that now that brother Homer Hailey has ended his earthly life, the wisdom of any mention
of his name in connection with this controversy will be questioned by some, but brother
Hailey's book on the subject, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God
(1991), lives on and will continue indefinitely to teach his doctrine. Doctrine has to do
with the eternal salvation or damnation of man and must be dealt with. "The issue in Romans 14 is precisely the
establishment of the right of
brethren to differ in matters of 'faith"' (Ed Harrell, The Bounds of Christian
Unity (3), Christianity Magazine, April, 1989, p. 6). The reason for this statement
is seen in another article in the same paper (1988, p. 328): "It is perfectly proper
that some congregations have not, and would not, invite Homer Hailey to preach because of
the position he holds on this subject (divorce and re-marriage, wp). Others, rightly I
believe, have decided to use him in spite of the difference." Brother Hailey is no
longer with us, but many who teach his doctrine are, so this quote is relevant with regard
to fellowshipping those preachers who teach his doctrine. On the next page of the same article, "If brother Hailey should write a
summary of his views on this subject, I would regret that he might convert people to a
view that I think is wrong." This is in reference to the doctrine that Matt. 5:32; 19:9 does not apply to alien
sinners. Brother Harrell would regret that brother Hailey might convince people of his
belief. Why? Because according to brother Hailey's book, when a couple that is living in
adultery is baptized they may with God's blessing remain in that adulterous marriage. (1)
Ed knows the doctrine is wrong and that the practice of it is sinful, (2) he would hate
for anyone to be convinced by it and thus practice sin; and yet (3) he thinks that brother
Hailey (and now, logically, those who teach his doctrine) should be fellowshipped anyway.
What kind of convoluted reasoning is that? This was the background for a series of 16
articles on The Bounds of Christian Unity. In his book, p. 9, brother Hailey says, "Does God require those who were
married, divorced and remarried while in the world and who would obey the gospel to
separate after they become Christians; or does He accept their marriage as lawful? I
believe He accepts them without requiring their separation and I will show the reasons
why." Then on p. 52, he says, "The alien is not under
the covenant law of Christ until he brings himself under it by obedience to its
terms," and on p. 55, "Matthew 19:3-10 referred not to the world, but to the
citizens of 'the kingdom of heaven."' This is what brother Harrell is talking about. He says brethren have the right to
differ in such matters of "faith," but the word faith in Rom. 14:1 is
obviously not the faith of Acts 6:7; Gal. 3:25; Jude 3, but rather the subjective
faith of brethren whose conscience would not let them engage in certain practices. The
teaching of Christ on marriage-divorce-remarriage would definitely be a matter of
"the faith" of Jude 3. It would be included in the teaching Paul refers to in
Romans 16:17. Brother Harrell opens the next article by saying, "It is obvious that
Christians sometimes disagree about scriptural instruction, even in matters of
considerable moral and doctrinal import. In spite of these disagreements, we work and
worship together, leaving many matters of individual judgment in the hands of God."
He implies that this is not only done but that it is right in God's sight. Since all his
readers know that he is dealing with marriage-divorce-remarriage, the obvious conclusion
is that this is one of the "many matters of individual judgment" that must be
left "in the hands of God." I do not deny that some brethren do just what he is
saying, but that does not make it right, because several errors taught by brethren
regarding marriage-divorce-remarriage definitely involve sin, sin for everyone. Brother Hailey's teaching on marriage-divorce-remarriage leaves baptized couples
in adulterous marriages. That's wrong. That is not a matter of opinion. It has nothing to
do with Rom. 14. That is a total misuse of this chapter. Also brother Hailey teaches that the adultery mentioned in Matt 5:32;
19:9 is figurative. In his book, p. 57, he says, "Since adultery was in
breaking the marriage covenant and making another covenant to suit their pleasure, Jesus
answered the Pharisees' question...He dealt with their treacherous purpose, which was to
put away a present wife and marry another." We might as well teach that the adultery
of John 8:3 was not physical and that the woman was caught in the court house in the act of
divorcing her husband and marrying another man. Fellowshipping Sin Make no mistake about it, to fellowship the brethren who teach and practice such
false doctrine on marriage-divorce-remarriage is to fellowship sin. Consider this
scenario: brother A teaches the truth regarding marriage-divorce-remarriage; brother B
teaches and practices error. But they fellowship each other (for example, in preaching
meetings, calling on each other for prayer). Then when a couple that is living in adultery
who are members of the church where brother B preaches comes to place membership in the
church where brother A preaches, will brother A encourage the brethren to accept them as
members? How could he refuse them? And if they do accept this couple as they are (living
in adultery), what other sin would they fellowship? This is a classic example of "unity in diversity." In reality it is
simply fellowshipping doctrinal error and sin (adultery). It is a tragedy that so many
brethren who fought against institutionalism are now selling out to the proponents of
other errors. It's as if they were saying "Truth doesn't matter any more. The main
thing is unity and fellowship." Those of us who are opposed to the errors listed above are accused of doing the
same thing, fellowshipping brethren in matters that involve sin. For example, some believe
that the one who puts away his wife for fornication cannot remarry. We are told that this
is a doctrinal matter and that it involves sin, and that since we fellowship
these brethren, we should also fellowship all the others who teach error regarding divorce
and remarriage. But the difference is obvious: If this brother (the one who believes that
it is a sin to remarry even though he put away his wife for fornication) should remarry,
it is true that he would sin. It would be sin for him because he would be
violating his conscience, but that does not make it sin for everyone who practices such,
because Christ clearly says, "except for fornication." Other matters are raised to cloud the issue such as (1) what if a man commits
fornication with his secretary, and hires a lawyer to divorce his wife before she gets a
chance to put him away for fornication? In other words, what if the fornicator wins the
race to the court house? This is playing games with Scriptural teaching and is beneath the
dignity of serious Bible students. Or (2) what if the one who puts away his wife for
fornication fails to specify this as the cause on the divorce papers? There may be a dozen
"what ifs" that have to do with the application of NT teaching on
divorce and remarriage, but these are not in the category of the seven things listed
above. Sin For Everyone However, if some brother is fully convinced that a certain application of NT
teaching on marriage-divorce-remarriage does involve sin for everyone (and
therefore is in the same category as the seven errors listed here), then he must draw the
line of fellowship against such practice. In other words, he will list eight (or nine or
ten) errors in the category that involve sin for everyone, sin that wrecks
fellowship. But one thing is certain: he must not fellowship sin. It is utterly ridiculous
for our brethren of renown to go over the country preaching that we have so many
differences over divorce and remarriage, that we should just let each congregation decide
what's right, and go ahead and fellowship all our non-institutional brethren no matter
what they teach on the subject. Jesus says explicitly that whoever puts away his wife except for
fornication and marries another woman commits adultery and the seven errors discussed at
the beginning of this section make a mockery of His teaching. This is an explicit
statement that applies to everyone. This is the doctrine of Christ. It's a
clearly revealed truth that takes its place alongside of such things as baptism, the
Lord's Supper and contribution on the first day of the week, singing without the
instrument and church autonomy. In discussing these errors regarding
marriage-divorce-remarriage we're talking about adultery (and that's what it is
no matter who calls it "marriage") - and beyond all question adultery is sin.
Not just sin for a brother if he thinks it's sin or if some congregation decides
it is sin, but sin for everyone who practices it. And living in sin destroys fellowship with God and also with the faithful. 3500 Maple Ave., |
||
|
|
||