Unity in Diversity
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 7] |
So long have we advocated division, in the mistaken view that by such a means could purity be achieved, we have allowed our consciences to become seared and our hearts to become insensitive and numbed, until a plea for unity and brotherhood falls upon deaf ears. Our Lord has delayed his coming, and we have arisen and begun to smite our fellowservants. Many are so cold and calloused that they look with jaundiced eye and prejudiced mind upon any attempt at peacemaking. They have been conditioned to think in terms of suspicion and hate. They resent those who, would pluck up the thorns and briers of partisan animosity. I have long wondered how the seed of our contemporary schismatic thought took such firm root in our hearts at first. Believers in Christ could hardly be more divided if they had been commanded to do so.
As our longing hearts turn toward thoughts of "fellowship in the Spirit" we find it necessary to completely restudy the question of unity. That unity is a desirable goal is universally admitted. That it is superior to schism no one even questions. But the nature of the unity toward which we should strive, and the means of attaining it when its nature has been established; these present grave issues to the concerned ones.
It should probably be recognized that there are some who are not interested in working toward unity. Many of these are discouraged and see no prospect of ever bettering the complex situation, so have resigned themselves to defence of the status quo. Others are partisan and fear that the faction, which they equate with the body of Christ, will lose its identity if they develop a wider vision, so they circumscribe the narrow confine beyond which they refuse to look. By closing their ears to any divergent expression they bask in the security created by the walls they have erected, forgetting that while they shut others out, by the same action they shut themselves in.
But there are growing signs of spiritual awakening. Many who were bitter, even a few months ago, under the gentle influence of the Spirit, are beginning to see the purpose of God with new eyes. Hearts are being warmed and tendered. Men are being made ready for the great crusade which lies ahead of us. They are losing their fear of reprisals from shortsighted men and declaring the good news of peace on earth with aroused fervor. All such must sooner or later confront personally the question of the nature of the unity for which we labor. At intervals, in the months past, we have been suggesting that "the unity of the Spirit" is not agreement on matters of opinion or interpretation, but is a "unity of diversity."
[Page 8] |
Some of those who have jumped on this phrase with an alacrity which they do not exhibit in other phases of spiritual activity, have accused us of compromise, surrender to the enemy, fraternization with the forces of evil, and traitorous conduct in the army of our absent King. We are persuaded that these brethren who would rejoice to see our pen silenced forever, if it cannot be used for party promotion, do not know whereof they speak, nor what they affirm. The truth is that there is just no other unity obtainable by free men, and, as far as I am personally concerned, no other that is desirable, since any other would demand a surrender of liberty and make us mere pawns of a system, or of the men who control such systems.
It is unwisely objected by some that there can be no such thing as "unity of diversity." They argue that if there is unity there can be no diversity, and to the extent that diversity exists there is no unity. Of course, the fallacy in this lies in their confusing unity with conformity. Even Francis Bacon, who died as far back as 1626, knew better,. for he wrote: "These be two things -- unity and conformity." It is a tragic error to try and make them the same. Actually, unity in practically any area, is a state of oneness achieved by varied and divergent elements. Let us consider a few examples to illustrate this point.
[Page 9] |
We are not to demand conformity to our opinions upon the part of others, but, "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (verse 22). It is not required that we all believe alike about everything, for it is plainly stated, "One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables" (verse 2). But it is required that we all love each other in spite of our variety Of views, and that we esteem brotherhood more highly than our personal preferences. "If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love" (verse 15). "Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ" (I Cor. 8: 12).
Our critics, by their own practice, bear witness to the truth of our contention. They do not agree with each other upon every matter; they violently disagree upon some things, even how to treat us! The degree of unity they do possess is one of diversity. It is not a question of whether they must agree upon all points, for they do not. The only question is which matters they will arbitrarily decide upon as grounds for division between themselves and other brethren. It is here the party spirit is manifested. Each faction is segregated from the others because of emphasis upon some specific issue, or a multiple of issues. This becomes the criterion of faithfulness or loyalty. A faithful church is one which is "lined up" on the divisive issue. It
[Page 10] |
The party may oppose individual cups and Bible classes. If so, there must be conformity upon these two matters. Those who oppose cups and classes may disagree about a hundred other things, but they will not divide over them. They are not elevated to a test of fellowship. They do not constitute valid articles in the unwritten creed. On the other hand, if a man is vociferous in opposition to cups and classes, he can do practically anything and be retained in the party as a member in good standing. His speech, attitude and behavior may be intemperate and unbecoming. His personal habits may be revolting and his conduct be boorish and insulting, but he will be recognized and accepted because he passes the test. He can be called upon to lead in prayer, while one who honestly holds a different view about cups and classes will be given the "deep freeze" treatment, although his life may be a credit to the lives of some of those who refuse to regard him as a brother. The unity of the party is one of diversity in every avenue except the party creed. Here conformity is enforced, or the non-conformist is considered to be out of Christ, because he is not allowed in the faction.
All who profess to believe in any unity except that which respects diversity in opinion, are inconsistent. They violate their own announced position "at sundry times and in divers manners." Any other unity would demand perfect knowledge of all who participate. Yet, none of these claim to possess infallible judgment. All of them oppose the pope because he makes such a claim. It is amazing how men who possess rational ability can allow themselves to be so "brain washed" as to ignore even the factors in their own lives which demonstrate the fallacies in their contention. There is not one congregation on this earth where all of the members agree upon every point of interpretation. There are no two preachers in the world who see everything alike. What unity they have is one of diversity, and there will never be any other kind where human beings are involved. Those who contend for any other are actually sowing the seed of strife and discord. They are apostles of division and disciples of schism!
In the pursuit of that unity which should be the goal of every saint of God, we must first lay a foundation. We believe that such a foundation must possess two parts. It must be based upon the supreme, absolute and sole authority of the word of God, and upon the inalienable right of private and individual judgment. Any union or association of believers which ignores or negates either of these factors is doomed to failure before it starts. To draw up any compact or agreement, regardless of how sincere the intentions of those who produce it, or how well written it may be, if it sets aside these two considerations, it can only generate dissension while it is in force, and culminate in eventual dissolution.
The Bible contains a revelation from God. It is the repository of the living oracles, and these are divine in origin. The authority of this revelation must be supreme in every area which it covers. It is the right and duty of every human being who is a subject of that revelation to read and study it, and thus to familiarize himself with its content. It is equally his duty to read with a view of understanding and grasping the significance of what God has spoken, and to follow his convictions of the requirements contained in it. This obligation, stemming as it does from our relationship to God, cannot be legislated out of existence by human power, nor transferred to others by any individual.
We are responsible before God as individuals. Thus do we die, and thus we shall be judged. God will open up the books and each of us will be "judged out of the things written in the books." We will not be held accountable for the ideas, interpretations, or opinions of others as to the implication of what
[Page 11] |
God demands no other worship from us than that which commends itself to our heart and conscience as being His will. We dare not act contrary to conviction, nor proceed in such a manner as to violate conscience. We are responsible for the nature of our obedience, as well as for our disobedience. Our worship must be an expression of our personal love for God, and this love requires us to search the scriptures to ascertain the will of God, and to implement it in our lives in such a manner that our heart condemn us not.
Any attempt to secure unity based upon any other authority than the revelation of God is absurd. What good would be achieved by uniting with others, if in the process, we severed ourselves from God? But, by the same token, any proposal for unity which denies the sovereign and inalienable right of each accountable being to approach God's truth for himself without the intervention of human priest or intermediary, will serve only to enslave conscience and divide men into warring camps. Such coercion of thought and compulsion of conscience is the first step toward Rome. It is a denial of the basic tenet of the Reformation.
But any unity which preserves these sacred and inherent rights must be one of diversity, not of uniformity or conformity. It cannot be the unity of Rome which abrogates the right of individual conscience and reduces man to subservience to an earthly cult of priestcraft. It must not be the unity of the strait jacket or of the stocks, for this is degrading and demoralizing to the human spirit. When we substitute submission to human authority for personal investigation of truth, and prevent difference of opinion by allowing no opinion at all, we take a leaf from the book of atheistic Communism, and make of the church of God a collection of puerile pawns and performing puppets.
We believe that unity which is revealed in the Bible is based on "the common faith," the belief held by all of us that God revealed Himself in Christ, and that it is only in Christ we can implement the divine purpose on earth. Having been baptized into Christ and having thus put on Christ, we are united, being knit together in love. This unity allows for diversity in knowledge, ability, service and conviction. It recognizes that there will be divergent opinions and provides restraint from imposing these upon others. In Christ, one may believe one thing, another who is weak may dissent. Neither may judge the other, neither may set at nought his brother. We do not seek to iron out our differences in order to become brethren, but, being brethren, we seek to eliminate our differences in love and respect for each other.
There can be no unity which does not allow for diversity of opinion. This was the nature of the unity of the early church. The saints of that age had many problems of greater significance than those which now trouble and disturb us, but they welcomed each other as Christ had welcomed them. Our opposers are living proof of the correctness of our thesis, for while denying that there can be unity in diversity, they practice it. It is only by tolerance of their divergent views and variant ideas that they are able to unite long enough to oppose us.
We need once again to recapture the meaning of the sovereign authority of the word of God in our lives, and to restore the inalienable right of every man to approach the Book and sincerely to formulate convictions based upon an understanding of its demands upon individual life. Then, if we will discuss our
[Page 12] |