Brother Thomas on Unity
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 163] |
In the Gospel Advocate for August 6, appears an article by our esteemed brother in the Lord, J. D. Thomas, a respected member of the faculty at Abilene Christian College. We reproduce it in full so that you can peruse it in proper perspective. Our own comments and strictures will follow the article.
Having just returned from a "Unity" meeting, and while my mind is fresh on the topic, I would like to make a few observations, and also some suggestions as to how unity may be achieved among the penitent, baptized believers in Christ.I would define "unity" as involving "the spirit of interrelation of Christians" to the point where there would be no hesitancy in inviting a person to hold a gospel meeting for you, provided he was sufficiently capable as a preacher. To call a man "brother" in public is, of course, a certain unity, but it is too shallow a view of unity to actually be that for which we should seek whenever we have "unity meetings." This is not the full-fellowship that is desired for God's people. So far as I know, most of us who are now, or have ever been, true children of God admit that the penitent baptized believer is a "brother," although we might hold back on the degree of fellowship activities we would be willing to engage in with him.
Full-fellowship to the extent that we will be willing for a person to hold a meeting for us, is impossible, as we have all recognized and practiced, without our doctrinal differences first being faced head on and cleared up point by point. This is true because the real doctrines that cause our present differences involve the actual practice of sin, as understood by those who withhold the full fellowship in each case. It is a logical impossibility for someone to decide that a given practice is no longer sinful without his having a new understanding of the matter, and having clear-cut reasons that change his understanding of the Lord's teaching on the point.
Moving from right to left across the spectrum, we begin with the "One-Cuppers," who
believe that it is a sin for the congregation to take the fruit of the vine out of more than one container and they, therefore, practice fellowship only with those who see like they do. Only in this way can they avoid the practice of something counted to be sinful. 1 Corinthians 14:23 makes a violation of conscience to be sin, whether the thing practiced is actually sinful in God's sight or not. So long as a man thinks that more than one container is sinful, he can do nothing else but refuse to take it in situations where many containers are used.
[Page 164]By the same token our "Non-Class" brethren, who have been withdrawn from by the One-Cuppers, feel that it is sinful to teach the Bible in classes in the arrangement that we ordinarily call Sunday School. As long as they feel this way, they have to withdraw themselves from those of us who have classes, or else they would be guilty of practicing that which they conscientiously believe to be sinful. It would be a sin for them to practice this while believing it to be wrong.
Again, those of us who use multiple-containers and classes, but do not use the instrument in our music, believe that it is sinful and wrong, and we have to separate ourselves from those who do use the instrument, to keep from sinning ourselves.
In all these cases everybody recognizes that each other is a child of God and therefore "brother." But as these illustrations indicate, the more conservative brethren in each case are forced by conscience to establish their own worship and fellowship programs. They have no choice, on pain of sin.
The Independent Christian Church brethren who use the instrument, but deny the scripturalness of the Missionary Society, are also logically bound to fellowship only with people of like convictions, else they constantly will be having to fight a battle of compromise with something that they definitely count sinful. Again, the brethren who accept the instrument and the Missionary Society, but who believe the Bible to be the infallible and inerrant word of God and their only rule of faith and practice, have to withdraw themselves from the extreme liberal Disciples who have been affected by modernism to the extent that they no longer get their authority for their faith and practice only from the written word.
To get all of these brethren into a single, real fellowship is going to require the working out of all these differences of understanding, and for each man who has an erroneous belief there must come a change of conviction before we could have real unity.
We already have a fellowship in the sense of "calling one another brother," but this is not fellowship in the Bible sense. It is not really being one in the sense for which Jesus prayed. Unity meetings ought to seek, therefore, to go "to the teaching and to the testimony" (Isa. 8: 20) and to work out in a careful and prayerful way a clear understanding of the real will of Cod upon the point at issue. There is in all this no place for an ugly spirit or anything other than deep "love of the brethren" to motivate us in our relations with one another. "Let love be without hypocrisy."
Too often brethren are disposed to sow seeds of discord, to judge the motives of others, and to believe half-truths and innuendoes. Possibly we get anxious to tear down a fellow preacher and his influence because of our own inferiority complex, thinking that if we can tear him down we ourselves will look better by comparison. This is another one of Satan's fallacies, but it has probably caused many preachers to act in a way that will bring condemnation in the judgment. Above all we need to learn to truly love one another, and to realize that we are all on the same team -- fighting Satan. It is nothing less than stupid for us to fight one another, as well as being sinful.
In a following article we hope to give the benefit of a lesson from J. W. McGarvey which we feel will be relevant as we meditate upon the right and the wrong of these points of doctrine.
Although Brother Thomas, at the outset, proposes to make "some suggestions as to how unity may be achieved," he utterly fails to do so. Instead, his article is an apologetic for division. It is a clear-cut statement of that legalistic attitude which may best he designated as Church of Christism. It was this very attitude which created our divisions in the first place and has perpetuated them ever since. So long as it is maintained unity will be an empty dream, a vision of sheer vanity.
[Page 165] |
Where did the Holy Spirit ever define unity in such terms? Which one of the apostles ever described it in such fashion? Can the prayer of God's Son be paraphrased to read, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for all them which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one to the point where there would be no hesitancy in inviting one to hold meetings for them"? Even the most casual and uncritical student of the scriptures should realize that "inviting a person to hold a gospel meeting for you," has absolutely no relation to the prayer which our Savior offered. Unity in Christ involves Jew and Greek, bond and free, male and female. So Paul said, and so I believe. Is our brother not going to share "the spirit of interrelation of Christians" with our good sisters in Christ? He'd better pray that the Women's Liberation Movement stays out of Texas.
If unity begins at the point of no hesitancy, then there is no unity of the Spirit while brethren are making up their minds whether they should invite a brother to hold a gospel meeting. What designation is bestowed upon "the spirit of interrelation of Christians" up to this point? Suppose that half of the congregation were willing to call a man for a meeting, and the other half hesitated. Would there be unity between the preacher and the half who wanted to invite him? If so, would there be unity between this half and the hesitants? Brother Thomas now has us in a real mess. In making "some suggestions as to how unity may be achieved," he has laid a foundation for splitting congregations over inviting preachers to hold gospel meetings. He will not be able to get a "patent" on this invention of his. A lot of congregations have been dividing over that very thing for years.
Why did our brother take this tangent? He had to do so. We must not forget that he is a leader in a party or faction within the restoration movement which is very reactionary against the fellowship of all God's precious children. I know just how he feels. I was once in the same beat, or rather in a different boat on the same pond. It is imperative that he define unity in such a manner as to make it impossible to have it. The barriers must be kept up to prevent the walls of exclusiveness from eroding away. If he would define unity in scriptural terms he would be forced to admit that it was not something we achieved at all. It is the result of the indwelling Spirit. Every person in whom the Spirit dwells is united to Christ, and through him to every other person who is in Christ. Our job is not to achieve unity but to enjoy it, and endeavor to keep it in the bond of peace. If he wrote that way the Gospel Advocate would not publish it!
Our brother is eminently correct in saying that merely calling a man "brother" in public, is too shallow. But really loving and treating all of God's children as brothers, both publicly and privately, is not so shallow. It can run deep! And since Brother Thomas admits that every penitent baptized believer is a brother, we commend this course to him. Brotherhood results from a common fatherhood. When I disdain or "set at nought a brother" for whom Christ died -- any brother -- I reflect against the Father. Paternity makes fraternity possible. If one is good enough for the Father to adopt as a child, he ought not to be too bad for me to accept as a brother, whether he holds meetings or doesn't.
Our brother repeatedly talks about "full fellowship." This is clear proof that he is not dealing with fellowship on a scriptural basis. Like so many others, he probably has it confused with endorsement. They are not the same at all. Fellowship
[Page 166] |
In true legalistic fashion it is said, "Full-fellowship to the extent that we will be willing for a person to hold a meeting for us, is impossible, as we have all recognized and practiced, without our doctrinal differences first being faced head on and cleared up point by point." Please do not think that I am rude and uncivil when I say this is sheer poppycock. Our good brother is farther "back in the woods" than I thought. He is still living in the nineteenth century with its factional fights, fusses and feuds. I have been invited to hold meetings for Disciples of Christ who believe that the word of God is our rule of faith and practice, for Independent Christian Churches, pre-millennial congregations, one-cup congregations, anti-Sunday School congregations, and even congregations where they would invite Brother Thomas. In all of these places we knew that we disagreed upon many things. We found our oneness in Christ Jesus. We were resolved that we would permit none of our differences to mean more to us than the relationship purchased by his wonderful blood. We allowed grace to cover our divergent views and met at the cross. It is a little ridiculous to postulate that we can never work together in our blessed Lord until we resolve every trivial action of every faction and settle every schism of every sect.
Brother Thomas engages in a dangerous practice when he starts calling the roll of our little segments and analyzing their position. One always reveals his own inconsistency when he plays this game. Our brother places those who use one container in distributing the fruit of the vine on the far right. He calls them "One-Cuppers." But whether they are on the right or left has nothing to do with where they are standing. It is determined by the direction Brother Thomas is facing. If he turns around the Disciples of Christ will be on his right. Obviously, he thinks he is in the center. So does everyone else. We are all "centrists" when we are doing the talking. But that means there are some on the right of Brother Thomas and some on the left of him. He is like the Light Brigade in the poem. You will recall that they got wiped out!
His point is that those who use only one container believe he is sinning because he uses individual cups. But Brother Thomas does not believe he is sinning. If he did he would ditch the cups. The same thing holds true with reference to Sunday School classes. He is not going to allow himself to be judged by those on the right as to what is sin for him. But Brother Thomas is to the right of the brethren who use instrumental music and he is going to judge it is a sin for them. The fact is that the whole burden of his essay is that there will be no unity until everyone sees everything just as he does.
There will be a lot of protesting about this but that is exactly what it amounts to. Brother Thomas is not about to give up cups and classes so those who use them can be united with his party. The only way they can have unity is to admit they were wrong in making a test of fellowship out of such things and come and join Brother Thomas. By the same token, and on the other side of the spectrum, as he puts it, those who use instruments must admit they are sinful, and come and join Brother Thomas. This means our unity is not in Christ's redemptive act but in Brother Thomas' expository ability.
Our brethren who are riding in his partisan vehicle are going to be the sole judges of what is opinion for everyone else and of what is faith for themselves. It is this very spirit of dogmatism which shattered a noble unity movement and smashed and splintered it into smithereens. So our brother is actually con-
[Page 167] |
His reference to 1 Corinthians 14:23 is unfortunate for his thesis. That chapter was inserted to show that we must receive and welcome one another in spite of our differences. If our brother believes the teaching of the chapter why does he not keep his "faith" about the instrument to himself? Why does he judge his brethren who use it? Why does he set at nought these brethren? Why does he seek to have dominion over their faith? Why does he try to destroy those for whom Christ died? Why does he not let them stand or fall to their own master? Is he endeavoring to judge another man's servant?
I emphatically deny that it is going to require the working out of all of these differences of understanding to get all of our brethren into a single, real fellowship. The apostolic letter to Corinth is stark proof of the utter fallacy of such a position. Were the brethren at Corinth not in a single real fellowship? In spite of their schisms, their mistaken views, their doctrinal errors, and their messed up lives, the apostle said, "Surely you know that you are God's temple, where the Spirit of God dwells" (1 Cor. 3:16). He wrote, "Now you are Christ's body, and each of you a limb or organ of it" (12: 27). Can you think of a better example of "a single, real fellowship" than a body?
If Brother Thomas had been at Corinth he would only have aggravated their state. They had some brethren who had "been so accustomed to idolatry that even now they eat food with a sense of its heathen consecration, and their conscience is polluted by the eating." They had others in the congregation who said there was "no resurrection of the dead." Paul did not tell them that it was "going to require a working out of all those differences of understanding" to get them all into a single, real fellowship. Instead, he said, "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." That is a single fellowship, since there is one Lord. It is real! Praise God!
Our brother asserts that for each man who has an erroneous belief "there must come a change of conviction before we can have real unity." The catch in this is that Brother Thomas does not think he has any erroneous beliefs. He thinks everyone else has. The brethren who make a test of fellowship out of cups, classes, and such things, all have erroneous beliefs. The brethren who use instrumental music also have an erroneous belief. All of these must have a change of conviction, that is, they must see things like Brother Thomas does in order to have real unity. But no one has a more erroneous belief than does our good brother himself. He needs to change his conviction about what constitutes real unity. There is where the real problem lies.
What he is advocating is that the body of Christ has to be fractured, split and shivered, over sin by definition. Let me explain. God does not say that employing multiple containers in the Lord's Supper is a sin. Those who think that Brother Thomas is sinning in this regard, postulate sin by human definition -- their definition. God does not say that teaching the word in classes is a sin. Those who think that Brother Thomas is sinning in this regard, postulate sin by human definition -- their definition. God does not say that using an instrument is a sin. Brother Thomas thinks those who do so are sinning by definition -- his definition. It is not that they violate God's directive. They just do not respect Brother Thomas' deduction.
These brethren propose to read and interpret God's word for themselves on musical praise, as Brother Thomas does on cups and classes. They respect God's revelation but deplore Brother Thomas' explanation. They feel that the word of God can be read as well in Abilene, Kansas, as in Abilene, Texas. If Brother Thomas in his observations on unity represents the thinking of the administration and faculty at Abilene Christian College, that school is set to encourage strife and schism, and promote division
[Page 168] |
I have a deep compassion for men like Brother Thomas. They are on the spot. "The eyes of Texas are upon them!" It is hard to play the game when the signals are being called by the spectators. I commend very highly the spirit exhibited in the last two paragraphs of our brother's article. He is right when he says, "It is nothing less than stupid for us to fight one another, as well as its being sinful." It is also stupid for us to perpetuate division and schism.
I am in the fellowship with Brother Thomas. I am also in the fellowship with brethren who oppose cups and classes, and with those who condone the use of instrumental music. I will help any of them, share with them, and labor with them when they will allow. The relationship which we have in Christ is worth more to me than the peculiarities of any of those who are in him.