Some brethren are concerned about my explanation of fellowship and they are unable to reconcile it with traditional explanations of certain scriptures. It is difficult for them to see how we may be in fellowship and differ on any point, although most of them claim to be in fellowship and differ on many points. One of my most regular critics is thoroughly convinced that those who employ instruments of music have abandoned the faith and jumped off the deep end, while he is just as certain that those who oppose cups and classes are extremists of the worst kind. Boiled down to its real meaning, any one who agrees with him perfectly is thinking clearly while those who differ in either direction are candidates for exclusion.
It was said that when Charles V was trying to bring the world to a uniformity of belief, and employing the thumb-screw and rack to achieve it, he was one day experimenting with three clocks in his retreat at Yuste. Unable to make the three clocks keep exactly the same time, he gave it up in disgust, exclaiming, "Here I was trying to make a whole world believe exactly alike, and I can't even make three clocks keep the same time." Wesley once said, "I have no more right to object to a man holding a different opinion from mine than I have to differ from a man because he wears a wig and I wear my own hair. But if he takes his wig off, and shakes the powder in my eyes, I shall consider it my duty to get rid of him as soon as possible."
One passage which seems to give the brethren trouble is Amos 3:3. "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" It is assumed that this teaches absolute unanimity of opinion as a requisite to fellowship in the Christ, and since I contend that fellowship is a state or condition into which we are called by God, through acceptance of His Son, and that we may walk together in Him while we are learning, even though we now differ in some particulars, it is concluded that my contention is contrary to God's plan and purpose.
Accordingly, it will be necessary for me to take time out from my outlined study on fellowship to deal with this problem, and while I am anxious to get on with my theme, I do not want to travel with such rapidity that I ignore objections which brethren consider valid. We have thought disunity and practiced it so long that it will be difficult for us to reverse our trend and go the other direction. Some of us will never be able to do that. We will continue to pursue our intractable and implacable way until death do us part.
It is obvious that my thesis is in conflict with the common interpretation of Amos 3:3. That interpretation is fortunately limited to preachers of the Churches of Christ. I do not know of many others who are naive enough to offer an argument for conformity based upon it. I do not think that my position is in conflict with what Amos said, but it is in conflict with what some brethren think he meant by what he said. This would point up to us several grave dangers. One is that of jumping at conclusions while ignoring the context, or setting of a scripture. A text without its context is a pretext, as someone has pointed out.
Another danger is that of creating an unwritten creed out of our interpretations. We are obligated to accept what God says: we are not obligated to accept what any person thinks that God meant. The basis of God's judgment will be His word, not some interpretation of it. He will open the books and we will be judged out of the things written in those books, every man according to his own works. God will not open up the books I have written, nor will he use the Mission Messenger as a basis of judgment. I may be judged by what I have written, but you need not be.
Either my general proposition is in error, or the common interpretation of Amos 3:3 is wrong. Before I ever began this series of discussions on fellowship, I carefully listed every passage which might be deemed as being in opposition to the thinking which has crystallized in my heart. I examined critically every one of those passages. If even one had been in apparent controversion of my view, I would never have expressed that view. I confess that I looked for a way out. I wanted to discover a scripture which would justify my position. This passage was first on my list. In my examination of its bearing on the subject, I became convinced that it has been misused and sadly abused. I have been no less an offender than others, and I must apologize for my weakness and error.
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Of course they can. They do so all of the time! I have never fully agreed with any brother upon every interpretation of the holy scriptures, yet I have walked in soul-stimulating partnership with many of them for years. Many a married couple has walked and worked together in spite of serious disagreements at frequent intervals. I doubt there has ever been a married couple that has not fallen out over something, when both of them were capable of thinking. Anyone who says he has not had an argument with his wife in twenty-five years would probably lie about other things if he got the chance. Many congregations have worshiped together in spite of varied and diverse concepts. Their love for Jesus was greater than their love for their own views and interpretations. To affirm that two cannot walk together until they have reached absolute agreement upon all issues is to deny the testimony of human history, and give the lie to our own experience. Anything less than perfect obedience would not be enough, for it would prove that two could walk together who were not agreed.
The common explanation is a good indication of what happens to those who engage in textual preaching. Nothing else has scrapped the scriptures, or disjoined and butchered God's revelation, to the degree it has been done by the popular method of preaching from a text. We want to deliver a talk on unity. Amos 3:3 looks like a good foundation, so we lift it out and start to work. And the sad result is that we employ it in such a manner as to actually divide God's people and create disunity. The purpose of any talk on unity should be to bring brethren closer to the Christ and to each other, but if you convince them that it is impossible to please God and to walk together if they are not agreed upon every point, then when they disagree on any point, they will sever relations and think they are doing God service.
But what did Amos means To understand this you will have to know a little bit about the man and his mission. Amos was not a recognized prophet, nor a product of the school of prophets (7:14). He was a lowly herdman and a gatherer of sycamore figs, which were used as food by the very poor. God summoned him to travel north and pour out a condemnation in the very courtyard of the king of Israel, the ten tribe northern kingdom, with its capital at Samaria. The statement in which we are interested occurs in one of the denunciatory speeches delivered by Amos. It is only one of a series of questions, intended to show the reason for his sudden appearance on the scene as a prophet. Here is the contextual matter.
"Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
Can two walk together except they be agreed? Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him? shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing at all.
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?"
The prophet is here using the common logical argument that for every effect there is a cause, and the cause is adequate to produce that effect. If a lion roars in the forest you can be sure he has prey. He is silent when stalking other game. If you hear a young lion in his den you can be sure he is devouring something. If a bird is caught in a snare it is because the trigger (gin) was set; if you see a trapper run to take up his snare it is because he has caught something. A trumpet is sounded in a city when danger approaches. It is a signal for the people to run for cover. In the same manner when one of God's prophets speaks, you can be sure there is a reason. God no more speaks aimlessly through his prophets than a watchman blows his trumpet for his own entertainment.
The expression "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" is only one facet of the argument. The term agreed is from yaad, which Strongs' Exhaustive Concordance says is a primitive root. It is defined "To fix upon (by agreement or appointment); to summon (to trial), to direct (in a certain quarter or position), to engage (for marriage)." It is obvious that the point under consideration is that when you see two people walking together, it is the result of an appointment to meet at a stated time. The purpose of the meeting is not under consideration. They might meet to debate their differences as they walk along together, but the fact they are walking along together, indicates an agreement to meet. They had an appointment.
It is possible in our thickly populated areas of today, that one might run into an acquaintance and walk along with him, but Amos did not live in such an area. J. R. Dummelow, M. A., in his comment on the passage says, "R. V. 'Have agreed,' have an appointment. If two people were seen walking together in the desolate regions with which Amos was familiar it might be assumed they had not met by chance. Nothing happens by chance. There is a reason and cause for Israel's calamities.
There is not one thing in the definition given by Strong which has to do with absolute agreement as two people walk together. The original word relates to an initial agreement to meet, regardless of the purpose. It does not cover the period of marriage, but relates to the engagement; it does not cover the trial in court, but relates only to the summons; it does not cover the purpose of the meeting, but merely an agreement upon time or place. I might agree to meet my dentist at a certain time, and we might be together by appointment. But that does not argue that I am in harmony with all of his views upon technique. I'm not!
I do not argue that absolute conformity upon all matters of interpretation is not an ideal for which we should labor. I do argue that it is not a prerequisite to fellowship in the Lord. We do not come into relationship with the Christ because we understand every point of theology, but because we have come into Him, we seek to reach a greater degree of mutual understanding. We are not in fellowship because of complete unanimity of opinion but in spite of our divergencies of opinion. We walk together because we have made an appointment with Him to do so. If we wait until we get together upon all of our varying opinions, we will never walk together at all!
God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, has quickened us together, raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:4-6). We are together because of grace, the undeserved kindness of God. We walk with God and He walks with us and in us. Is this conditioned upon our perfect understanding of all things as God sees them? If God can walk together with me while I am learning, seeking, searching, and yearning to know more about His will, can I not walk with all others in Him who are in the same condition? Jesus walked with two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and asked them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?" After hearing their stumbling explanation, he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken," and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures concerning himself. Will He who then walked with foolish men who were slow to believe all that was spoken, refuse to do so now? Or, will His gentle grace abide with us, through His Spirit, that our hearts too may burn within us while He talks with us on the road?
God's purpose as to ourselves has not yet been perfected. It cannot be as it pertains to each individual, until the individual reaches the ultimate in his spiritual attainment. The temple of God is a growing structure. Each generation finds it reaching outward and upward. The ropes are lengthened and the stakes arc strengthened. It is not static, but active. Strangers and foreigners become fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. These are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus is the chief cornerstone. In Him "the whole structure is joined together, and grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21). The act of joining the stones together is a divine one; the act of growth is a natural one, aided by the Spirit. Growth always indicates change and adjustment. We must make that in order to fit more fully into the plan of Him "in whom you are builded together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." The fellowship is the joint participation in the Christ which makes us a part of the building. We are held together, not because of ability, genius, attainment, accomplishment, or opinion, but by the cement of love. That cement allows for soul expansion as "we grow up in every way into him, who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:15). How shall we treat each other while we are growing?