Is Unity Possible in Diversity?

By Grayson H. Ensign

     Is unity possible in diversity? God said through his inspired Paul,

     As God's prisoner, then, I beg you to live lives worthy of your high calling. Accept life with humility and patience, making allowances for one another because you love one another. Make it your aim to be at one in the Spirit, and you will inevitably be at peace with one another. You all belong to one body, of which there is one Spirit, just as you all experienced one calling to one hope. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, one Father of us all, who is the one over all, the one working through all and the one living in all.

     Naturally, there are different gifts and functions; individually grace is given to us in different ways out of the rich diversity of Christ's giving. As the scripture says:

     When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive
      And gave gifts unto men.

     We are not meant to remain as children at the mercy of every chance wind of teaching and the jockeying of men who are expert in the crafty presentation of lies. But we are meant to hold firmly to the truth in love, and to grow up in every way into Christ, the head. For it is from the head that the whole body, as a harmonious structure knit together by the joints with which it is provided, grows by the proper functioning of individual parts to its full maturity in love. (Ephesians 4:1-6, 7-8, 11-16. Phillips).

     This, it seems to me, is God's answer to the question. God says that there is diversity but that we must be "one in the Spirit." Thus my message ought to be very simple and brief--"Yes, unity is possible in diversity and that is the only possibility of ever having unity." Those who planned the program evidently did not want it that simple and short; so leaving discretion behind I shall wade out into the deeps into the "hot water."

     First of all let us check to see what unity we are talking about. You and I are agreed, I feel sure, that we are not for a moment concerned about a sectarian or denominational unity. We are not seeking to maintain a party or a human organization of any kind. The unity we are vitally concerned about is a spiritual oneness, imparted by the Spirit, and "in Christ." The Holy Spirit declared through Paul,

[Page 50]

     As the human body, which has many parts, is a unity, and those parts, despite their multiplicity, constitute one single body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by the Spirit into one body, whether we were Jews, Greeks, slaves, or free men, and we have all had experience of the same Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13. Phillips).

     Secondly, we need to define the diversity we are discussing. This is the key word in the assigned topic. Here lies the crux of the question. How diverse can we be and still maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? By diversity I refer to the differences or unlikenesses which exist in that large realm of nonessential matters commonly called "matters of opinion" or more accurately "matters of necessary judgment" about things not legislated by God. This area may include a number of doctrinal issues and matters of considerable importance.

     Surely all of us are ready to admit that there is a very large area of issues, beliefs, practices, and undertakings upon which we differ at once and even after considerable study. At the same time we are largely agreed that some things are beyond debate in the Christian's mind. The obvious difficulty is where we are going to draw the line between the great field of heterogeneous activities and convictions that are permissible and those convictions and practices that are prohibited or inadmissible. We all draw the line somewhere, and it is right to do so.

     Is there a solution to this vexing problem? What diversity can be tolerated by the body of Christ and what diversity begins the destruction of that body? To be in fellowship with Christ and as many of our brethren as possible is the hope and obligation of our lives. We need, then, a principle or a series of scriptural principles to enable us to determine this vitally important matter in a God-pleasing way. Even after we have a set of guiding principles we are still going to have some diversity in application to plague us. Yet we can hope, given the right principles, to arrive at a oneness of agreement that such differences that remain will be minor trifles.

     With these introductory thoughts in mind, I invite you to search with me for some answers to our diversity. My material will be developed under the following heads:

      I. The Basic Postulate Underlying Our Investigation
      II. The Basic Policy as to the Realm of Necessary Judgments
      III. Diversity that is Good and Diversity that Becomes Destructive
      IV. Some Scriptural Principles to Follow in Dealing with Brethren who have Freedom and Diversity

     Since then we are determined to please God and glorify Him by doing His will we must admit that the final revelation through Christ, our New Covenant scriptures, is normative, authoritative and regnant. Where God has spoken in His Word we are bound and must be united. If we are not agreed on the authority of God's Word, then there is no fellowship or basis for fellowship. The Word of God is our only hope in the matter of fellowship, unity, growth in grace and knowledge, and growth in fellowship. The more we let the New Testament control us the more we will be correcting our assumptions, our inherited opinions, our hand-me-down traditions, and our so often mistaken conclusions.

     God is absolute truth. His thoughts alone are true. His thoughts are perfectly, plainly, and sufficiently recorded in His revelation so that any man with this guide book in hand can determine the nature of God, His will for man, and the

[Page 51]

way to heaven. The Divine System is infallibly and inerrantly communicated to man in the New Testament. We must conform our thoughts and harmonize our wills with this perfect revelation, not meaning merely the words of the message, but through the words to the life of the Living Word. The struggle of the Christian life is to drop out and eliminate the false, foolish and flabby thoughts and deeds through the input of the true, consistent and valid thoughts of God. We have the truth and are right with God when our thoughts and deeds agree with God's revealed thought. We are wrong and tending to destruction when we are out of harmony with the word of God.

     This is my position which has been tested and proved over the years. I have seen no reason to change it, and I do not intend to change this fundamental postulate.

     Then came five years in Jamaica where my spirit was forced to rethink some of the teachings of Scripture. I went to Jamaica "knowing" that there were 45 churches of Christ and about 2,500 "Christians only" in the island, and I left with the conviction that there were many more churches of Christ than 45 and the 45 I had counted on had been reduced by about half. Also I was certain that I had far more brethren in the Lord in Jamaica than 2,500. I concluded that only God knew all the brethren. I am still of that opinion.

     May I suggest that the statement of Brother C. C. Adams is useful and worthwhile in setting a policy on expedients? He said that so many problems and differences begin in the area of expedients. In the Christian Forum, July, 1951 (p.6), Brother Adams argued for the doctrine of "implied powers." He said that there are two alternatives.

     "Either the NEW TESTAMENT CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY DELINEATES EVERY ACTION, ITEM, AND INSTITUTION TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE CHURCH IN ITS WORK, or it IMPLIES THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH TO EXERCISE HUMAN JUDGMENT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. There is no middle ground here. If the New Testament provides exhaustive instructions, there is no room for human judgment. Divine judgment would be available on every subject in such a case. If the New constitution does not afford unabridged instructions, some matters are deleted by the Spirit and certain details are left to the judgment of the church."

     He then goes on to quote with approval from Campbell's Christian System: "Still, there are many things left to the law of expediency concerning which NO PRECEPTS are found IN THE APOSTOLIC WRITING....in other matters that may be called the circumstantials of the gospel and of the church of Christ, the people of God are LEFT TO THEIR OWN DISCRETION and to the facilities and exigencies of society."

     In concluding this section let me state that I believe that the literal statements or commandments of God concerning Christ and His salvation are binding as essentials. The great foundational truths such as Ephesians 4:1-6 are matters of cardinal teaching and must be accepted. There is a broad area of agreement about these items among most Bible-believing followers of Christ today. Those that may be questioned must be settled by the

[Page 52]

soundest hermeneutical process and through careful discussion by open-minded brethren seeking the truth.

     There are certain fixed and eternal truths that are immovable foundations for the kingdom, but there are variegated structures and developments on these foundational truths. There are many expressions of personal development in Christ, and each radiant personality adds to the good and the enjoyment of the whole by everyone.

     Does not diversity work for good in marriage? We do not all desire to marry the same woman and instead find a variety of types and personalities to choose from. We may wonder at the choices of our brethren as they may be puzzled by our choice, but we are content for each man to have his own wife. Within marriage we soon find out that we are married to someone like us, yet quite different in other respects. We largely rejoice in these dissimilarities and find them most beneficial, but at the same time we are compelled to accept some diversities that we find odd, awkward, or even unpleasant. The most handsome, congenial, and loving husband may he a horrible snorer. The sweetest, loveliest, and most agreeable wife may put her hair up in those sticky, bristling brushes each night, or, worse yet, serve up the hardest biscuits ever baked. Still we do not disband the marriage over these trivial differences. Modern merchants have done their best to reduce the pain of these idiosyncrasies through dual-controlled electric blankets, etc. Why can't we develop more dual-controlled scriptural blankets to cover the brethren?

     Love is the binding force that keeps these marriages together and functioning. Love can overcome and overlook so much that might otherwise break the fellowship. But there is diversity and divergency that can and does break the marriage fellowship--adultery, desertion, and sin such as the murder of the spouse. So in the spiritual realm there are diversities that can be tolerated, overlooked, laughed at, or stoically endured for the sake of fellowship; but there are some differences that cannot be tolerated or ignored. Diversity may become deviation and deviation may become denial and denial may result in apostasy and damnation.

     Let us be honest and realistic in admitting that we here are treading on ground that is precarious for the careless and unthinking. Only the high and holy goal of the unity of God's people in a loving and functioning fellowship calls us out of the safe contexts to walk on dangerous ground. Some can make shipwreck of the faith

[Page 53]

(1 Tim. 1:19) in failing to steer a straight course by the infallible compass of God's Word. It seems safer in the harbor, but ships must sail!

     Diversity that endangers the gospel facts and commands or jeopardizes the nature and the work of Christ, or which undercuts our salvation is to be condemned, exposed, and opposed. The Christian is prohibited from an unrestricted fellowship:

     Do not unite yourselves with unbelievers; they are no fit mates for you. What has righteousness to do with wickedness? Can light consort with darkness? Can Christ agree with Belial, or a believer join hands with an unbeliever? Can there be a compact between the temple of God and idols of the heathen? (2 Corinthians 6:14-16. NEB).

     Four classes of persons are to be rejected from fellowship. 1. Those who are not "in Christ" are to be rejected--Muslims, Buddhists, modernists who deny Christ as the unique Son of God, those who reject the miracles of Christ's virgin birth and resurrection, or those who oppose or deny His lordship over their lives. Deliberate rebellion of the individual against the authority of God's word in matters of faith, fact, and teaching is evidence of unbelief and of being not "in Christ."

     2. Furthermore, there are those out of the fellowship because they have become immoral, unrepentant sinners. The Spirit wrote through Paul,

     But in this letter I tell you not to associate with any professing Christian who is known to be an impure man or a swindler, an idolater, a man with a foul tongue, a drunkard or a thief. My instruction is: "Don't even eat with such a man."...It is your plain duty to expel from your church this wicked man! (1 Corinthians 5:11-13. Phillips).

     3. Again those who are unwilling to repent of personal wrongs against brethren and who thus introduce disharmony in the body are to be dealt with and, if all else fails, they are to be excluded from the fellowship according to Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. Everything is to be done to win back and reconcile the offender, but the ultimate obligation is to maintain the honor of Christ, the integrity of His body, and to protect the body against even its own members. Cancer seems to be cell production that has become too diversified and prolific. It may lead to the destruction of the body. When all else has failed, surgery is a necessity, an obligation for the welfare of all the other members of the body. So it must he with the impenitent sinner in the body of Christ.

     4. Finally, there is the sinner who brings dissension and division into the body of Christ, the factious man. Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms comments,

     Factious stresses the contentious, perverse, or turbulent provocation of party spirit or a tendency to break up into embittered and irreconcilable factions: only when it implies as a result the destruction of peace in the group as a whole does it suggest indifference to or defiance of constituted authority....(p.465)

The Holy Spirit through Paul states,

     And now I implore you, my brothers, to keep a watchful eye on those who cause trouble and make difficulties among you, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, and steer clear of them. Such men do not really serve our Lord Christ at all but are utterly self-centered. Yet with their plausible and attractive arguments they deceive those who are too simplehearted to see through them. (Romans 16:17-18. Phillips).

     Obviously the overseers of a congregation are charged with the spiritual welfare of the souls of the simplehearted as well as those of mature saints, and they cannot ignore the factious man. Paul writes to Titus and says, "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-l1).

     Brother C. C. Adams gave a very excellent statement on receiving brethren:

     One comes to me ostensibly desiring my fellowship. "Is he a brother?" He assures me that after receiving as true the gospel facts, he repented, confessed his faith in Christ, and was immersed for remission of sins. I press the matter no further....
     I will soon find, in associating with him, that we differ in some respects. This is not extraordinary. Each Christian disagrees in some respect with nearly all, if not all, his

[Page 54]

brothers. With time I note in this brother certain failings and consequent sins. I am not alarmed, for all my brothers and I have sin. I would be surprised if this brother had no sins, for he would be a rarity. And so we fellowship, differing and falling short, considering, admonishing, forbearing, suffering long, and growing--in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
     If, at any time after the initiation of this fellowship, I discover among my brother's failings a certain sin specified by Jehovah as a disqualification respecting fellowship, action is in order. What kind of "action?"
     Shall I withdraw fellowship at once without any preliminary action? God forbid! Withdrawal of fellowship is a last resort, not a first resort. To the unavoidable chagrin of the Saviour, the church has been invaded by numerous first-rate haters and tenth-rate Christians who appreciably abbreviate the procedure demanded by love, wisdom, and scriptures. In the case of the personal offender, discussed by Jesus in Matthew 15, three distinct overtures were employed before the offender became as a "Gentile and tax collector." The divider of churches was not to be rejected before one or two admonitions (Titus 3:10). "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should"--disfellowship him!--"restore him in the spirit of gentleness." (Gal. 6:1). (Christian Forum, April, 1951.)

     Certainly let us have tolerance, but there cannot be a toleration of that which is poisonous, evil, and ultimately destructive. Every sectarian body began with slight deviations from and almost unnoticeable infractions of the Divine will. This historical fact is what causes many of the brethren to fear any effort in the direction of communication with those in the household of faith who live in other rooms.

     Brother F. L. Lemley spoke out on this question:

     We must abide by what is revealed. It is revealed that those who believe the gospel, repent of their sins and obey, are accepted of God and added to the Church. But what if such believers in process of conversion believe in cups, classes, colleges, or what if they oppose the same? (these are examples; the principles may extend further). Will God add them to the Christ? If not, then there are conditions of salvation that are not stated. If so, then those who make such a condition of fellowship are wrong, dead wrong, in adding requirements to God's word!
     From these observations we conclude a safe rule to follow is, Any idea, practice, or doctrine a man may hold in process of conversion and God accept him in spite of it may he tolerated in the church after his conversion (Gospel Broadcast, Aug. 10, 1950, quoted in the Christian Forum, May, 1951, p.9.)

     Now let us summarize our findings about diversity. The fact of diversity cannot be denied, and we have admitted that there is helpful, beneficial, and needful diversity. We have seen that no family or congregation could possibly be united if 100% agreement was required of all members. Differences will always exist as long as we are finite and in this fleshly tabernacle. What really counts is how we handle these diversities from "within the name of Christ" who by His unmerited favor has redeemed us and commanded us to grow in grace and truth. We must be determined to let His Word instruct, rebuke, and fill us while we learn to appreciate and love one another more and more. We need to let the Holy Spirit convict us of our own sin, shortcomings, imperfections, and weaknesses--to see the beam in our own eye--so as to have sympathy and love for our weaker or stronger brethren.

     Again, we saw that we are in fellowship with those who sin because none is perfect. All of us have sinned and do sin, and it is only by the unmerited favor of Christ that we are delivered from hell. Yet there are specific sins which continued in and unrepented of must be recognized by the church or its overseers and dealt with firmly and scripturally, even to the disfellowship of the impenitent brother.

     Then in the realm of necessary judgment, where God has not clearly stated the what and the how of His will, each of us must speak in our own fashion to the best of our conscientious and sincere desire to do God's will in all well-pleasing with the least disturbance to other brethren and being very careful not to bind our way of doing God's will on another. We dare not carnalize the spiritual truth of God with our sectarian prejudices, human opinions, antique traditions, nor dare we deny what the Sovereign Lord has taught or commanded. Are we wiser than He?

     In the end there is going to be of necessity a personal decision prayerfully

[Page 55]

reached as to whether or not we are in fellowship with another person. Our decision will not seal his destiny nor be a binding judgment on the Heavenly Judge; but it could be that our decision, mingled with the gall of malice and contempt, might lead to our own spiritual illness and final condemnation by a merciful Heavenly Father who loves all His children.

     Our only word of admonition or suggestion might be that we be ever mindful of the twilight deception of easy relativism as a possible reaction to our former smugness of absolutism. (Refocusing God, the Bible, and the Church, pp. 118-9).

     This is a very real danger and has swallowed up many brethren who have wandered into relativism. Neo-orthodoxy is a subtle and insidious bewitchment for some unwary brethren today who see in it an apparent way to hold to the faith once for all delivered unto the saints and at the same time keep up with the "modern thought of the best thinkers of the day." The Gnostic spirit is not dead nor has it lost its fatal attraction for the egotistic spirit of man who always finds it difficult to bow before Jehovah and confess, "I am a sinner."

     On the other side there are brethren who easily answer the question by saying, "When in doubt don't have fellowship." Brother Beam in the September, 1951,Christian Forum, page 12, referred to a paper published by some brethren in Iowa with this statement, "May I suggest to anyone who feels confused over the fancies of men in the matter of fellowship that you take no chances! It is better to fellowship too few than too many." Brother Beam cried out against this as a radical departure from the New Testament truth which the same author had stated earlier, "Our limitations of fellowship must be equal with the will of God--NO LARGER AND NO SMALLER." This narrow and sectarian thinking violates the New Testament teaching and leads to hostile suspicion and witch-hunting.

     Dr. Ray A. Young reminds us that we must learn an important teaching of our Lord in this regard:

     In view of the above simple and self-evident truths which spring from God's word, how can Christian A, who does not have all truth and who holds some error, judge, condemn and forbid Christian B because he does not have all truth and holds some error? How can we be so dull as to need teaching on this subject? Has not God foreseen the slowness of our minds and given us a precedent?
     Remember the incident when Christ's disciples forbade a certain man to cast out devils in the name of Christ? Did they object to the devils being cast out of the man or did they object to the name of Christ being used in that most worthy work? Is it not true that their only excuse for forbidding him was that he did not belong to their little group, or to use the words of John--"And John answered him saying," Answered whom? He answered Christ. What had Christ just said that John answered? Christ had just said--"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name receiveth me"-Mk. 9:37. Note John's answer to the statement of Christ--"We saw one casting out devils in thy name and he followeth not us: and we forbade him." Note John's excuse--"He followeth not us." What did John mean "He followeth not us"? Is it not plainly obvious that he meant, he did not follow us in doctrine and see with us and through our eyes?
     Did Christ condone the unwarranted, narrow-minded sectarianism of John? He did not. He commanded John--"Forbid him not." But we today forbid our own brethren who teach or even dare to believe anything not cleared through our proud minds. The lesson of Christ has thus far been wasted on us so far as our slow-minded comprehension is concerned. (Christian Forum, Sept 1951, p.8).

     So we resolutely turn our backs upon these easy and false answers to the question of unity in diversity and turn to the word of God to get His infallible answer. I shall be quoting from both the inspired accounts by the evangelists and the inspired statements found in the epistles. There is no difference in the inspiration or the authority of these different com-

[Page 56]

positions. I may not understand Brother Cottrell's context or his statements as he meant them, but I reject his introduction of a dichotomy of value or authority between the teachings of Christ and the inspired teachings of Christ's apostles. He said,

     Such is hardly the case when one studies the epistles. Having been written perhaps as emergency teachings and advice to correct certain errors of the hour, little opportunity was left for much inspired apostolic supplement to the Great Life. Hence, the greater issues of life as dealt with by Jesus had to give preference to various individual and congregational problems which it appears often consisted of marginal error. While this was of course important, it points up what is stated elsewhere, namely: "All truths are equally true, but not equally important." (Refocusing God, the Bible and the Church, p.40.)

     This, as it sounds to me, is way off center and flies in the face of express declarations of scripture. The epistles are the applications and elaborations of Christ's life and teaching for all time. Did the Holy Spirit really allow such a waste of effort and space for trifling and marginal errors?

     Yet here is an illustration of our diversity in unity because I do not count Brother Cottrell as outside the fellowship because of this position which I consider invalid and dangerous. I believe that a discussion of the scriptures and what is involved in the position would soon bring us to harmonious terms and understanding if not to eye-to-eye acceptance of the same view.

     The early church was full of diversity, having strong differences over meats (Rom. 14:2), days (Rom. 14:5), and the law (Acts 21:20). The restoration of the New Testament church in the 19th century in the United States was marked by many and significant diversities. Yet in both cases these brethren got along fairly well without splintering into slivers.

     What did they possess that we don't have? What did they believe and practice that we don't believe or practice? These brethren of earlier years had the New Covenant scriptures and the Holy Spirit even as we do, but they were more willing to believe what God had written than we are and to make every effort to practice the principles. We do not need to romanticize the earlier periods of the church and claim they had no troubles, no problems with fellowship, etc. We know this is not true, but we also know that it is true that they seemed to maintain more unity of fellowship than we have often done in our day.

     Let me suggest five principles which were successfully applied in the church to promote unity even with diversity. 1. The first one must obviously be love with its attendant virtues of forbearance and unselfishness.

     You have learned that they were told, "Love your neighbour, hate your enemy." But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Surely the tax-gatherers do as much as that. And if you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. You must therefore be all goodness, just as your heavenly Father is all good. (Matthew 5:43-48. NEB).

Jesus also said,

     I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved you, so you are to love one another. If there is this love among you, then all will know that you are my disciples. (John 13:34-35. NEB).

     The Holy Spirit used Paul to write comprehensively of love in 1 Corinthians 13 and to show the practical application of this love in reference to matters of opinion in 1 Cor. 8 where the great principle of liberty is circumscribed by the greater principle of love. In 1 Cor. 8 we are taught that there is no exercise of Christian liberty apart from the exercise of Christian love. This is underscored by 1 Cor. 10:23-24.

     As I have said before, the Christian position is this: I may do anything, but everything is not useful. Yes, I may do anything, but everything is not constructive. Let no man, then, set his own advantage as his objective, but rather the good of his neighbor. (Phillips translation).

[Page 57]

The same principle is found in Romans 14:13-15,

     Let us therefore stop turning critical eyes on one another. If we must be critical, let us be critical of our own conduct and see that we do nothing to make a brother stumble or fall....If your habit of unrestricted diet seriously upsets your brother, you are no longer living in love toward him. And surely you wouldn't let food mean ruin to a man for whom Christ died. (Phillips).

Again, the Holy Spirit's teaching is,

     Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of one another than you do of yourselves. None of you should think only of his own affairs, but each should learn to see things from other people's point of view. (Philippians 2: 3-4. Phillips).

     2. Our second great principle is called the "Golden Rule"; "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; far this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12. RSV). It seems to me that this simply means to act as Christ acted. In 1 Cor. 14:20 we are taught, "Do not be childish, my friends, Be as innocent of evil as babes, but at least be grown- up in your thinking" (NEB). The Golden Rule is but the practical, daily living of the principle of love. Yet it would save a lot of hurt feelings, neglect, misunderstanding, and wounds if we would only live by it.

     3. The third principle is stated in 1 Cor. 10:31-33:

     So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved (RSV).

     Or as Jesus worded it, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (RSV). It is the principle that God takes the preeminence. God's interest, will, and kingdom have top priority in the thinking of every disciple of Christ. Above all, God must get the glory, praise, and recognition whether or not we get any at all. In giving God the glory we shall not offend men or cause them to stumble. This is a principle of moral action and carried out in our lives will eliminate much of the friction and arrogance that mars our fellowship.

     4. Our fourth principle is similar to these others but is stated by the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 14:26b, "Let all things be done for edification." In Romans 14:9 it is said, "Let us then pursue what makes for peace, and for mutual upbuilding" (RSV). This is a positive work. It is seeking the good in others and for others. It is not tearing at one another in harsh judgment and searing criticism that comes so easily for all of us. But it is the earnest work of love that uplifts, encourages, and quickens. It is the spirit we need to cultivate.

     5. The fifth principle is stated in Romans 14:1, "Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples" (Phillips). And again in Romans 15:7, "In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God" (NEB). We are to be like Christ in receiving one another in all kindness, love, patience, forgiveness, tenderness (Matt. 18:21), and without malice, hatred, or ugly feelings (Matthew 5:2).

     Brother Beam commented,

     No, when we recognize the oneness we have by faith, baptism and common purpose in Jesus Christ we then come to heaven's ground best to deal with differences and grow up into the truth. We obey the command to receive one another as we have been received (Romans 15:7). We no more endorse, participate in, and encourage, that which in conscience and conviction we cannot accept, than do God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit endorse, participate in, and encourage all the errors of us all the while They strive to save us from our sins. (Christian Forum, June 1951, p. 11).

     To conclude this section, let us see how in the apostolic church these guiding principles of inspiration were applied to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace in the midst of diversity. In Acts 6 we learn of a disturbance in the local congregation at Jerusalem. Some of the saints with Greek background thought

[Page 58]

that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food in favor of the widows of Hebrew background. The apostles called the assembly together and the first deacons in the congregation were selected to remove this problem. From their Grecian names it is inferred that these deacons were all from the party that brought the complaint. Certainly this action shows the exercise of the principles of love, the golden rule, and trust among brethren.

     Another case was presented to the church in Acts 15 when the very great and serious issue of the Gentile believers keeping the law of Moses was brought up. It was settled by a Christian application of the principles in the light of the testimony of the apostles and the testimony of the Word of God.

     Brother Leroy Garrett in his lecture, "Who Is My Brother?" delivered on the 1963 Missouri Christian Lectureship, provided us with some valuable material on how the pioneers in restoring New Testament Christianity in the United States dealt with the problems of diversity in unity. He pointed out the case of Aylett Raines, and Thomas Campbell's spirited defense of Raines as a brother:

     He is philosophically a Restorationist and I am a Calvinist, but notwithstanding this difference of opinion between us, I would put my right hand into the fire and have it burnt 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.

     Alexander Campbell pointed out that Raines' view was not a question of faith because the Bible says nothing about it. Raines was kept in the fellowship and later gave up his opinion on the final restoration of the wicked dead.

     Brother Garrett also cited the case of Stone and Alexander Campbell who were friends and brethren in spite of some very sharp differences on several important doctrinal points.

     This made the restoration movement of the 19th century unique and powerful. It was successful in calling sincere believers out of all kinds of sectarian backgrounds to be free men in Christ and to have the unity of the Spirit in the midst of human variety and diversity. The reestablishment of these same principles, same attitudes, and same spirit today will put in motion the power of God to unite all believers in the one body. A thousand differences in the realm of opinion may be found among brethren today, and yet we are brethren in spite of all of them. Brethren do differ and yet freely acknowledge one another as in fellowship on many things in the realm of expediency and necessary judgment. We must more and more demonstrate to all that Christian brethren do hold each other in esteem as members of the same body of Christ in the midst of a multipicity of variegated opinions and differences.

     1. Our basic postulate is that we must please God and we do this by keeping His Word.

     2. We decided there are differences and expedients in the realm of necessary judgments and stated our conclusion that these do not, when defined accurately, jeopardize unity.

     3. In the next place we saw that diversity is a reality of nature and human life, that it is good and beneficial in most areas, but that it can become dangerous, poisonous, and destructive. In such a case this diversity is to be opposed and eliminated or the one holding it is to be disfellowshipped.

     4. Then we listed five principles found in the revelation of God which enable us to live harmoniously with our brethren who differ from us--love, the Golden Rule, do all things to the glory of God, do all for upbuilding, and welcome one another as Christ has received us.

     Let me close with an inspired statement which is so much better than my feeble words to answer the question of unity in the midst of diversity:

[Page 59]

     Those of us who have a robust conscience must accept as our own burden the tender scruples of weaker men, and not consider ourselves. Each of us must consider his neighbor and think what is for his good and will build up the common life...
     And may God, the source of all fortitude and encouragement, grant that you may agree with one another after the manner of Christ Jesus, so that with one mind and one voice you may praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God. (Romans 15:1-2, 5-7. NEB.)