Barriers to Unity
F. L. Lemley
[Page 58] |
Before we can make much progress toward the unity which we have so fervently proclaimed there are certain attitudes and opinions which must be altered.
The first great impediment is prejudice, which has been called "the unanswerable argument." Our intellects will accept a new idea before our emotions will and until we emotionally accept the fact that others outside of our little circle are also Christians, our progress is stymied.
Another great barrier to unity within the restoration movement (we must achieve unity here before we have anything to offer the world) is the false idea that fellowship is endorsement. The fallacious view persists that if we call upon a brother who differs with us on some issue, to lead in prayer, to speak in our pulpits, or to have part on a lectureship program, we have thereby compromised and endorsed error (that which we believe to be error).
It is a strange thing that our schools can invite the president of the Chamber of Commerce, a senator, or a world traveler (who may be a Buddhist) to speak, and not an eyebrow is raised, but let that outside speaker be a missionary from another faction of the restoration movement, and fellowship constitutes endorsement. All doors are closed to those who differ with us on our so-called "issues."
Why is this? Many of us know but are victims of the proverbial code of the old west, "Shoot first and ask questions later!" If one even suggests there may be other ideas than those we have mouthed about unity for a hundred years, he is forthwith expelled. Brethren are slow to allow one to remain in who differs with the traditions of the fathers--not the apostolic fathers, but our earthly fathers and men of brotherhood prominence.
We allow men who are morally deficient and whose word is worthless, to pray, teach and sometimes preach, and we think nothing of endorsing lying by so doing, but if a man of unimpeachable integrity believes in instrumental music, the premillennial coming of Jesus, or in one of our other arbitrarily selected issues, it is endorsing error to use him. We need to do some soul-searching. Why is our use of a man endorsement in one instance, but not in another?
Another great barrier to unity is the false idea that God extends grace only to those who are doctrinally correct and obey perfectly. Obedience is a matter of degree and always has been, but we have espoused the idea that God's grace came to rescue man in Eden and gave him a legal plan. Then, with the concept that God took one legal plan out of the way and substituted another, we must alternate between salvation and condemnation. God's children in "Churches of Christ" can never be sure until the judgment whether they are saved or lost.
For example, there is the command in Hebrews 10:25 which tells us not to forsake the assembly. This is said to mean any meeting which the elders call. But suppose one does forsake an assembly. We teach he has sinned and is condemned until he recognizes his shortcomings, repents and prays for forgiveness--God's second law of pardon. If a person goes to judgment with one such sin unforgiven he will be condemned. Ask a member or preacher in the Church of Christ what he would do if he knew he only had five minutes to live. The usual answer is "I would pray to be sure all my sins are forgiven." Why? Because we think we have a legal system given to us by the grace of God. But there can be no grace in such a system!
The grace of God is for the lawbreaker, not for one who succeeds in keeping law perfectly. By its very nature grace reigns over and above, and sometimes outside
[Page 59] |
We conclude, therefore, that the grace of God is for those who in spite of all, are doctrinally imperfect and unable to keep the law to perfection. There are no other kinds of men living, so this grace must be for us, else we have no grace at all.
The correct concept of grace can be learned from God's dealings with Abraham as discussed in Romans, chapters 3 through 5. Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3; 4:9, 22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23).
Because of Abraham's faith God counted him righteous. Now Abraham was not righteous before God because he kept all of God's commandments perfectly, or because he recognized all of his sins, repented and asked God's forgiveness for them. He was not righteous before God because he actually accomplished the offering of Isaac for a burnt sacrifice. He did not complete his obedience in the matter of offering Isaac, but he intended to do so, and God knew his intentions. Here is a clearcut case of God accepting the intent of a faithful and surrendered heart as though the deed were finished. This same principle applies to us (Rom. 4:23).
God does not grade us on commandment keeping, but accepts our faith in lieu of one-hundred percent success. There is a vast difference in an obedient heart and a successful heart. There are multitudes of obedient hearts, but there is not one that is a hundred percent successful in commandment keeping or doctrinal excellence.
Because of Abraham's faith, God did not impute his sins to him (Romans 4:7, 8). This means that God just did not take his sins into account. One good brother argued that the reason these sins were not imputed was that Abraham recognized them, repented of them and asked God's forgiveness for them. This is the legal system from which we have been delivered under the gospel.
If it is true that the sins of faithful men like Abraham are imputed unto them until they repent, confess and pray, there is a vicious cycle of life and death. One sins, becomes condemned, repents, prays God and is restored to life. But Paul teaches that men of faith are delivered from "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1-3). The man of faith in Christ Jesus does not come into condemnation for his sins; all of them--past, present and future--are forgiven because of his faith. This does not mean that he cannot lose his faith, and therefore lose his salvation, for he can. It does not mean he can never sin so as to be lost, for he can.
The logical reaction of the legalistic mind to this reasoning is that if it be true, we had just as well pay no attention at all to sin. Paul anticipated this when he wrote, "God forbid! How can one who has died to sin go on living in sin?" He goes on to say that we are servants of that to which we yield our members. A man yielding to sin and one who sins inadvertently while trying his best to please God are altogether different.
God sees the heart while we have been judging the overt accomplishments of the heart. So long as men require a hundred percent doctrinal correctness and a passing grade (that is, one reaching the standard they have attained) in law-keeping, there can be little progress toward unity and little peace in the brotherhood. Every doctrinal difference must be resolved, and every tittle of the law be observed, with those who do not understand that God's grace is for the deficient.
When one understands salvation by grace through faith, he can allow for the doctrinal and intellectual errors of his
[Page 60] |
Perhaps this will be helpful in starting some on the right chain of thought. Grace is for those who are doctrinally imperfect and who fall short of keeping law perfectly. We do not live under a re-vamped legal system. With this concept, all brotherhood issues cease to be matters of life and death except as the individual conscience becomes involved. But this is another long and tedious question which we will not discuss at this time.
(Editor's Note: F. L. Lemley works with the Wheatridge Heights Church of Christ in Denver, and may be addressed at 4801 Depew Street, Denver, Colorado 80212.)