Have you ever read the song of the vineyard by Isaiah (5:1-7). It is a portrayal of God's disappointment with his people. It demonstrates how little esteemed are the blessings which heaven bestows. The Lord planted his vineyard in a fertile hillside. He fenced it for protection; gathered out the stones, thus removing obstacles and impediments; planted it with the choicest vines; constructed a tower for guarding it; and made a winepress in anticipation of the fruit. But when the time of vintage arrived it consisted of bitter and acrid wild grapes.
The vineyard was the house of Israel. The men of Judah were the pleasant plants. From them God expected to glean a harvest of justice and righteousness. Instead he received only oppression and strife. The lament of the husbandman is thus recorded: "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?"
God's great disillusionment with his people is aptly portrayed in Psalm 80, where David makes a statement and asks him questions. God brought a vine out of Egypt. He drove out the nations and planted it. He cleared the ground for it, and it took deep root and overspread the land. The mountains were covered with its shade. The mighty cedars were protected under its branches. Then the question is asked why its walls were broken down so that even the casual pedestrian could pluck its fruit. The boar from the field ravaged it and all that move in the field feed on it.
Now for the application. After the congregation of God was given two great wings like an eagle, and fled into the wilderness, to be nourished by God in the secret recesses of the heart for more than twelve centuries, the time came when under the intrepid leadership of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther and Huss, as well as other noble souls who loved not their lives unto death, the veil which had eclipsed the face of truth was slowly lifted. As the word of God began to have free circulation, however, men followed leaders and thinkers of great ability, who sought to codify their interpretations and make them the basis of fellowship and salvation. Thus the work of the reformers crystallized in the formation of a group of intolerant schismatic sects, the adherents of which battled against each other with a fury unsurpassed by even the papal dogmatists.
Then, after the commencement of the nineteenth century, and in the midst of the Second Great Awakening, began a movement which seemed destined to sweep the world for Christ. It was launched by men of deep conviction who were affiliated with various sects. It did not begin in America. The fire first burned in the bosoms of honest individuals in Ireland and Scotland. But it was in this new land where there was no establishment of religion, where men were reaching, grasping, seeking and searching for new homes, new fortunes and liberty, that a fertile hillside was created for planting the new reformation vineyard. Here where men were free to think, free to speak, free to act, to question, challenge and dispute, it seemed that providence had combined her talents to provide the proper setting for the great drama of the ages.
The choicest vines were planted. Persons of noble character, high ideals and brilliant intellects, abandoning the parties of which they were members, resolved to be no longer partisan defenders, but to use their talents and fortunes to advance the cause of the absent King to whom they declared allegiance. They did not seek to unChristianize others. They recognized all truth regardless of who held it; they rejoiced that Christ was preached regardless of who proclaimed Him. They opposed error but loved all men; they sought to maintain even the human dignity of an opponent. They did not "stoop to conquer."
It was not their idea to plant another church. Instead, men of various sects formed themselves into "a religious association under the denomination of the Christian Association of Washington, for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men." They were chiefly Presbyterian, but were joined by some Methodists and a few Baptists. One could still worship where he was affiliated and remain a member of the association.
Article IV of their constitution declared, "That this Society by no means considers itself a Church, nor does at all assume to itself the powers peculiar to such a society; nor do the members, as such, consider themselves as standing connected in that relation; nor as at all associated for the peculiar purposes of Church association; but merely as voluntary advocates for Church reformation; and as possessing the powers common to all individuals, who may please to associate in a peaceable and orderly manner, for any lawful purpose, namely the disposal of their time, counsel and property, as they may see cause."
To further their "lawful purpose" they composed a "Declaration and Address" to share their thinking with "all that love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, throughout all the Churches." One part of it said, "Dearly beloved brethren, why should we deem it a thing incredible that the Church of Christ, in this highly favored country, should resume that original unity, peace, and purity which belong to its constitution, and constitute its glory? Or, is there anything that can justly be deemed necessary for this desirable purpose, both to conform to the model and practice of the primitive Church, expressly exhibited in the New Testament? Whatever alterations this might produce in any or in all of the Churches, should, we think neither be deemed inadmissible. Surely such alteration would be every way for the better, and not for the worse, unless we should suppose the divinely inspired rule to be faulty, or defective. Were we, then, in our Church constitutions and managements, to exhibit a complete conformity to the apostolic Church, would we not be, in that respect, as perfect as Christ intended we should be? And should not this suffice us?"
Seldom did two of them agree in all points. They held widely divergent views as to the work of the Spirit, the functions of grace, the nature of man, the subject of future judgment and the problem of eternal punishment. But they conceived that Christ was greater than their personal views, and they tolerated the divergencies of opinion, believing that to make of an opinion a test of fellowship, would only create two diverse parties, and they had too recently fled from partisan division to the city of refuge.
They built into their Declaration and Address the necessary safeguards to prevent division. Consider this: "That although inferences and deductions from scriptural premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's confession."
In a practical sense, it was observed by Alexander Campbell: "But men cannot give up their opinions, and therefore, they can never unite, says one. We do not ask them to give up their opinions: --we ask them only not to impose them upon others. Let them hold their opinions, but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property; opinions are, and always have been private property. Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all Christians. Hence the deductions of a Luther, and a Calvin, and a Wesley, have been the rule and measure of all who coalesce under the names of these leaders. It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect."
It was not long until there came an opportunity to apply the principle to see if it would work. Aylette Raines, who preached that all men would be eventually restored without exception, applied for membership in the Association which also sheltered the Campbells. Thomas and Alexander Campbell were present at the meeting where Jacob Orsborne brought the matter formally before the gathering and asked that it be definitely and finally settled. Thomas Campbell, after expressing profound regret that such matters would have to be introduced, said: "Brother Raines has been with me the last several months and we have fully unbosomed ourselves to each other. He is philosophically a Restorationist and I am a Calvinist, but notwithstanding this difference between us, I would put my right hand into the fire and have it burned off, before I would hold up my hands against him. And from all I know of Brother Raines, if I were Paul, I would have him in preference to any young man of my acquaintance, to be my Timothy."
The very sound of such a plea fell like welcome rain upon a parched earth. The religious world was jaded and jaundiced. The petty bickerings and fierce antagonisms of the sectarian world had driven many to skepticism and infidelity. The plea that all who recognized the sovereignty of Jesus could be one in him, and no one surrender any truth he ever held, was one to rally the thinking hearts. It appeared that simple as Christianity. Some believed it was a millennial harbinger.
What happened to the powerful movement to restore the ancient order and to unite all believers in the Christ? As it was in the days of Isaiah, it has come to pass again. In spite of all that heaven did in behalf of the vineyard, it is producing wild grapes, bitter, acrid, poisonous with venom and hate. The noble effort of the giants of yesteryear has been diverted by men of pygmy stature into an excuse for civil and fratricidal strife which makes it a laughingstock to the world. Those who know it best make sport of it. The restoration movement which proposed to unite all in Christ is now shattered into more than two dozen warring factions, each of which proclaims itself to be the bride of the Messiah, and all of which are contesting the provisions of His will before the court of human opinion.
That you may savor just how wild are the grapes we have produced, let us mention but a case or two by way of illustration. The Son of God left the community of saints a feast of fellowship, by which the citizens are to proclaim His death until He has returned. All who are sealed unto God are to participate in unity of purpose. "We are all one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread." But the children have fallen out with each other and because the Lord has delayed His coming, they have taken to smiting each other. The very expression of unity and fellowship of the one body have been made one of the most frightful causes of division and disfellowship.
Think of it! Men have divided over whether the bread which represents his body shall be leavened or unleavened; whether it should be prepared with oil or some other ingredient; whether it should be passed whole; whether it should be made of wheat or some other grain. Congregations have actually been rent asunder over whether the fruit of the vine should be fermented or not; whether it should be passed in one container, several, or many. Here is the spirit of intolerance and the love for factionism gone to seed. And when factionism exists in the hearts of the members, it does not make any difference how they partake of the elements --it is not the Lord's Supper. When a congregation is filled with the party spirit, until the members eye each other with disdain and suspicion, they need not be concerned about how they prepare or pass the emblems for they are an abomination unto God when they pretend to communion with him and hate their brethren.
The one who died in agony for my sins has bound me to eat the bread and drink the cup in memory of him until he comes. When I sit down at the table with the saints, I shall not scrutinize or examine the bread to see if it is leavened or unleavened, or made with oil or not. I am not told to examine the bread. I am told to examine myself that my motive in participating be without reproach. I shall not concern myself with how it is broken and how it is passed. I am told to eat the bread and thus share in his death. Regardless of the grain from which the flour was made, whether there is yeast in it or not, it is bread, sanctified by the giving of thanks to its purpose and I shall seek to discern the Lord's body, rather than trying to discern what my brethren are thinking.
I know that factionalism is sinful! It is a work of the flesh. To build a party around a type of bread, or a manner of presenting it is a sin! A man may have scruples as to the type of bread. I should recognize them in the community of saints, and out of love should determine to keep from offense of my brother. It is a sin for either of us to build a party so that the body will be rent into a "leavened Party" and an "unleavened party." And that goes for the cup of the Lord. There is no such thing in Christ as "multiple cups churches" and "one-cuppers." These terms represent divisions created by men.
They are semantical, divisions of vernacular, and they belong to the vocabulary of narrow, intolerant, factional spirits. They are disgraceful and sinful. Those who love the Lord should purify their hearts of the attitude which creates such unscriptural verbiage so that they may purge their tongues and pens of such language. We are disappointing God with our wild grapes of hate, bitterness and the party spirit. God help us to rise above the schisms we have created.