Toward Unity (No. 2)

F. L. Lemley

[Page 70]

     Knowing that we are saved by grace, and having assurance that so long as we hold to our faith, our imperfect knowledge and faulty performance will not bar us from heaven, we are now ready to love and recognize all of God's children as our brethren. This would be an easy step if it were not for the misconceptions and prejudices of the brethren. When one really tries to love and treat those of other factions as brethren, those who should be the closest often draw back, thinking that we have endorsed error and bidden Godspeed to pagans (2 John 7-9).

     Let us simplify the problem and deal directly with the ultimate question of the non-instrument segment of the Restoration movement. Does calling on a brother in the Christian Church for prayer in one of our assemblies constitute an endorsement of instrumental music in worship? Does speaking to a congregation that uses instrumental music in worship constitute an endorsement of the instrumental music? No other subject could be raised in the non-instrument brotherhood that would provoke more prejudice and evoke more emphatic pronouncements. All such prejudice and pronouncements are not merely on one side of this issue. We want to go right to the heart of the problem by specifying this example but the principle will apply to all.

     As opposers of instrumental music we

[Page 71]

have two choices. The pro-instrument brethren have the same choices but they are necessarily worded differently.

     1. We can, as some say, regard those who use the instrument as not being children of God, and treat them as we would respectfully treat any other heathen or publican, or, we can:

     2. Love them and recognize them as brethren and by our actions show them that we consider them as God's children. By our actions we mean to invite them to lead in prayer, to preach, to exchange speaking engagements, and invite them to our lecture platforms, etc.

     To say that we recognize them as brothers and treat them as pagans, is a contradiction in itself and hypocritical. We do not advocate here the inviting of factional men and troublemakers to tear up congregations. Both sides of all issues must manifest the right spirit.

     Those who choose the first alternative of excluding as heathen and publicans those who differ, should be ready to take the consequences of adding conditions of salvation to God's Word that God never required. All of us would agree that this is asking for certain damnation.

     Must one be correctly informed on the music question (whatever may be correct) before he can become a child? To say that one may become a child while holding error with the intent to implement it, but that God will cut him off as soon as he implements his belief, is to put oneself in the judgment seat of God. "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" (Romans 14:4). If God accepts a person as His child while he holds and intends to practice error (whatever it is) do we not know that God is not going to cast him out because of it. To do so would be unjust and unreasonable. Our childhood is not dependent upon what we do after we are born.

     Those who would make a correct understanding of brotherhood issues (any of them) a condition of childhood or brotherhood, fail to distinguish between two major and obvious divisions of scripture, to say nothing about their failure to observe the facts of spiritual life. There is birth and there is growth, two distinct processes in both the natural and spiritual realms. There is reproduction and there is digestion, two distinct functions in both spiritual and natural life.

     We must clearly distinguish between the seed that produces the life and the food that sustains it. We must learn that, as people grow spiritually, there will, of necessity, be differences. We must learn that God's revelation is one thing, but our application and interpretation of the revelation is an altogether different thing. Two may agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and our final authority in all things religious, yet differ on many interpretations of its contents.

     It is the fatherhood of God which makes us brothers, not our correct understanding of all His words. It is our faith in Christ that makes us children, and not the purity of our spiritual food. Two may have a faith in Christ which would lead them to a martyr's death, and yet prepare their spiritual food quite differently and with different ingredients.

     We must face the fact that, while all scripture is inspired of God, not all of it is seed of the kingdom and essential to spiritual birth. For example, what does the age of Methuselah, Paul's journeys, the account of the flood, the book of Revelation or the prophecy of Daniel, have to do with our being born again? Nothing! This is not to say that these things are unimportant and serve no purpose. All truth is to be desired, but not all truth is essential to spiritual birth. None of the above truths, and none of the truths (whatever they may be) on brotherhood issues, have to do with our becoming children of God and spiritual brothers.

     The second alternative of accepting each other as "erring brethren" while joining together in work and worship as far as we agree is more consistent with scriptural teachings. But if we call a man who believes in instrumental music to speak on our lectureships, to lead in prayer, etc., does this not constitute an endorsement of that which we believe to be in error?

     According to the J. B. Phillips Version,

[Page 72]

Paul, in writing to the Galatians, addressed them as "You dear idiots of Galatia." This is quite a fitting address to the proponents of the restoration movement who believe that endorsement of one activity on which we agree is blanket endorsement of all of the activities and erroneous views on which we disagree. We are about the only "dear idiots" in the world who pretend to believe that. Those whom we choose to refer to as "the denominations" (not our own) have a free exchange of speakers with no thought of endorsing that which they believe to be in error. Some have even invited certain of our brethren to participate with them in certain functions. To conclude that asking one to lead in prayer who disagrees with us upon certain issues (including instrumental music) is to endorse that which we believe to be error, is absurd!

     Our endorsement does not extend beyond our participation, or our "having pleasure in" (Romans 1:32), that is, giving consent to a thing with approbation. One may sing where the instrument is being played without endorsing the use of the instrument in worship. He can sing where the instrument is being played without the instrumental music becoming a part of his individual worship, just as he may follow the prayer of a brother who does not express his individual desires, without endorsing that which is disagreeable to his taste.

     One may accept the Lord's Supper when served by one who drinks or who is a profane person, without endorsing his drinking or profanity. One may pray with a brother without endorsing all of his prayer, and he may sing with the instrument without endorsing the instrument. All of us practice this principle everytime we come together for worship. We have joint participation (fellowship) as far as we agree and when it comes to disagreement we all participate with certain reservations. Why try to deceive ourselves? Let us face facts! This is what we all do! Worship is an individual matter and not a "herd" activity.

     Agreement on "the issues" is not essential to childhood and neither is it essential to the kind of unity for which Jesus prayed. We must understand that a man's conscience is a very personal thing and when that conscience becomes involved in his relationship with his God, minor points become important to him, in fact, so important that his salvation depends upon his obeying his conscience. No two men ever agreed upon every verse of scripture unless one was a rubber stamp. God's children are not only allowed to disagree but they must differ if there is to be growth. This is one thing that gives us the exercise we need in order to develop. Children have to scuffle in order to grow up normally.

     Each individual must develop his own conscience, and allowances must be made for different personalities. In the final analysis there are situations which may arise that can only be solved by a separation. But separation per se is not sinful. The case of Barnabas and Saul is a case in point (Acts 15:36).

     Some have said that when two disagree, both may be wrong, but both cannot be right. Someone has to be wrong if there is a disagreement. So what? Is every error, regardless of its origin, a cause for damnation? Will one go to hell for being mistaken about the age of Methuselah? It is interesting to note that both Paul and Barnabas were right even though they disagreed. Barnabas had the good of Mark in view, while Paul had the good of the work in view, but if either or both had been wrong, it would not have been fatal to their salvation.

     Their disagreement made it imperative that they go into different fields, but they were still brethren who could sing, pray and worship together. They remained brethren and they treated one another as brethren. There would be no sin involved today in our differing factions if it were not for the "unbrothering" and the ostracizing of one another from the kingdom of God. Each has his own field of work and will reach some who otherwise would never hear the gospel. All sow the same seed and preach the same gospel of the kingdom. All produce children of God.

[Page 73]

     When one's conscience becomes involved he must be allowed to follow his conscience right or wrong. This is not the easiest thing in the world to allow as long as we labor under the misconception that all truth is essential to salvation and all error is damnable, and so long as the consciences of brethren reject reason and refuse to respond to truth. We invent all kinds of rationalizations to "whip into line" our brethren. We bring sectarian pressures to bear or seek to debate them to death. None of this has worked very successfully in the past.

     All truth is desirable but it is not all essential to childhood or salvation. Error is like disease, all of which is undesirable but not all of it is fatal. We must learn to make distinctions so we can tell the difference between seed which produces life and meat or bread which sustains it. What if some do exist on burned meat, sourdough bread, or poorly seasoned hash? Many people lived and died before either germs or vitamins were discovered.

     All who have been born again have come by life in the same way, through faith in Christ and obedience to His will. Obedience always involves the human element of intellect and ability. In the case of Abraham, God accepted his faith (implemented in works) for righteousness (Romans 4:3), even though his obedience was not complete or perfect. This is for us today! One's faith may be perfect and his knowledge defective and his obedience incomplete. God's grace covers us while we are in the process of growing up spiritually and while we make many mistakes in judgment and hold many errors of the intellect. If this is not so, heaven will be a lonely place. If God loves us and accepts us as children in spite of our defects and failures, then we must accept our brethren in the same way. "He shall have judgment without mercy who hath shown no mercy" (Ephesians 2:13).