by Chris Reeves
Synopsis: Brethren have preached, promoted, and practiced "unity" for many years, but sadly, they are not united on how to be unified.
Most, if not all brethren I am acquainted with, desire two basic principles in their lives: restoration and unity.1 Brethren today desire to restore the ancient order of the New Testament church and understand that can be done by following God's pattern only (Exod. 25:9, 40; Num. 8:4; 1 Chron. 28:11-12, 18-19; Heb. 8:5; 9:24). They know the pattern for Christians today is the New Testament pattern (2 Tim. 1:13). They also believe it is important to follow the Old Testament examples of King Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29-31) and King Josiah (2 Chron. 34-35) who both reformed and restored God's people back to God's law when necessary. They realize that even God Himself seeks to reform His people when they are disobedient (Lev. 26:23).
Additionally, brethren today desire unity with other Christians. They know "how good and how pleasant" unity is (Ps. 133:1). They understand that Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:20-23) and that Paul pled for the Corinthian Christians to be "perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). They preach about the "unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3) and the "unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:13). They also believe "division" to be a sin (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; 11:18; Gal. 5:21).
Brethren have preached, promoted, and practiced these two principles of restoration and unity for many years. However, they have done this in radically different ways. Sadly, reality is that brethren are not united on how to be unified. They do not all restore to the same point of restoration. All the same Bible passages are being quoted by brethren today, from Psalm 133:1 to Ephesians 4:3, but not all brethren apply these passages in the same way.
As a result, some brethren claim to be united with others while differing with them on such matters as the missionary society, instrumental music, premillennialism, institutionalism, centralization, the fellowship hall, the sponsoring church, the purpose and mode of baptism, marriage-divorce-remarriage, the duration of hell, the deity of Christ, women preachers and elders, the days of creation, changes in the Lord's supper, returning to a restored earth, etc. For many years, some brethren have held "unity meetings" and "restoration forums (summits)" where they agree to disagree with other believers over certain Bible matters. First, some brethren desired unity with members of Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ Churches, then later, they desired unity with members of denominations.
In this article, let us examine some of the erroneous approaches that brethren have advanced in the past fifty years or so to promote a brand of restoration and unity which broadens fellowship beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). Through the years, many approaches have been made by brethren to arrive at unity, but here we focus our attention on five and examine them in roughly chronological order.
Some brethren in the 1950s-60s made an artificial and arbitrary distinction between New Testament "gospel" and "doctrine" in order to promote unity.2 They divided the New Testament into two parts. They claimed that "gospel" (preaching Jesus) is what is done to the lost and "doctrine" (teaching church doctrine) is what is done to the saved. Accordingly, brethren can be united on the "essential," important "gospel," while at the same time being divided on "non-essential," less-important "doctrine."
Men like Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett taught that there are believers in different religious sects who can be united on "gospel" (Jesus) while at the same time being divided on "doctrine" (the church). Carl Ketcherside taught this gospel-doctrine distinction in Mission Messenger and Leroy Garrett did as well in Restoration Review. In later years, some brethren modified the gospel-doctrine distinction and talked about uniting on the "core gospel" or "bull's-eye gospel," and dividing over "doctrinal matters."
Some brethren in the 1960s-70s taught that God's grace covers doctrinal differences and errors, so unity could be had by those who differ in doctrine.3 Ed Fudge, Rubel Shelly, and others advocated this approach to unity.
Some brethren in the 1970s-80s taught that the blood of Jesus continuously cleanses a Christian of his sins and covers any doctrinal errors that he may teach and practice allowing him to be in unity with other Christians.4 This approach to unity is like the one previously stated above. Arnold Hardin, Bruce Edwards, and others advocated this approach to unity.
Some brethren in the 1980s-90s taught a so-called "new hermeneutic" which allowed for greater unity among professed Christians.5 The new hermeneutic (new interpretation) was an effort to tear down the biblical teaching of commands, examples, necessary inferences, silence, law, and patterns. In place of the "old hermeneutic," some brethren suggested a hermeneutic that focuses on God, views scripture as narrative, focuses on the Lord's Supper, and reads scripture as Jesus does. "Scholars" among our institutional brethren like C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, Thomas H. Olbricht, Allan J. McNicol, and Michael Casey advocated this type of hermeneutic and approach to unity. A few among the non-institutional brethren like Charles Holt, and those associated with The Examiner, did the same.
Some brethren from the 1990s to the present have taught that Romans 14 allows Christians to differ on matters of doctrinal belief and still be united and in fellowship.6 F. LaGard Smith, Rubel Shelly, Olin Hicks, Samuel Dawson, Don Patton, and Ed Harrell have all advocated this approach to unity. Brother Harrell taught this approach in a series of articles that he titled "The Bounds of Christian Unity" and published in Christianity Magazine. The idea is that Romans 14 teaches us to "receive" our brother even in matters of doctrinal difference and even when our brother teaches what we believe to be wrong.7 According to brother Harrell, Romans 14 addresses Christians who "sometimes disagree about scriptural instruction, even in matters of considerable moral and doctrinal import."8
True Bible unity cannot be found in these erroneous approaches. There is no biblical basis for these man-made attempts at unity. There is no distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine;" rather, they are simply two different terms for the same body of truth (Rom. 1:15-16; 6:17-18; 1 Tim. 1:10-11). God's grace does not cover the teaching and practice of doctrinal error; rather, it desires that we cease from sin and error (Gal. 6:1, 15; Tit. 2:11-12; Heb. 10:29; 12:25; Jude 4) and that we remain within gospel truth (Gal. 1:6; 2:21; 5:4). Jesus' blood does not continuously cleanse a brother who teaches and practices doctrinal error; instead, the benefits of His cleansing blood are conditioned upon ceasing sin and error (Acts 8:22), confessing it, and praying for forgiveness (1 John 1:7-10). There is no "new hermeneutic"—the only hermeneutic (interpretation) that brethren are to use is that given to them by Jesus, His apostles, and the New Testament church. Romans 14 does not teach that brethren are to receive one another when moral and doctrinal differences are involved; instead, it teaches us to receive one another when matters of scruple are involved (i.e., things that are not wrong in and of themselves; see also 1 Cor. 8:8).
So, why do brethren from time-to-time seek unity in these erroneous ways? Is it because brethren see the attempts of denominational folks to have ecumenical movements among themselves and these brethren want unity "like all the nations" (1 Sam. 8:5)? Is it because they tire of being in a small fellowship and weary of fighting over doctrine, so they desire unity with "Christians" in other sects to broaden their fellowship (Rev. 2:14-15, 20)? Is it because they don't want to be divided with close Christian friends and family when a division comes over a matter of truth and error (Luke 12:49-53)? Is it because they are proud and won't admit that they or others have been teaching and practicing error (1 Cor. 5:1ff)? Is it because they are liberal and progressive and love their innovations more than truth, so they look for ways to keep these innovations and remain united with others (2 John 9-11)? Is it because they are not as militant as they should be for truth and so they compromise and unite with error (Jude 3)?
Whatever the reason, God knows, but the brand of unity that some brethren have promoted in the past fifty years is not biblical. Their brand of unity promotes an unbiblical "unity in diversity" (or, as some have called it, "unity in perversity").9 This is unity by overlooking doctrinal differences (errors). They promote a type of "peace-at-any-price." They promote "union" more than unity. They promote "fellowship without endorsement." They "agree to disagree" over certain Bible doctrines. What is next, brethren applying "unity in diversity" to the practice of abortion, polygamy, homosexuality, or transgenderism?
This is not the unity that we find encouraged in the Bible. In fact, "unity in diversity" weakens the Lord's church by compromising with false teaching and denominational error.10 A soft, tolerant approach to doctrinal differences and error places the Lord's church in jeopardy (Rev. 2:14-15, 20). And, if all that is not bad enough, promoters of erroneous unity sometimes call brethren who differ with them, "close-minded," "sectarian," "legalist," "keepers of the orthodoxy," "factional," and other such slanderous names.
Do we have to choose between restoration or unity? No. The plea for restoration is a plea for unity. True restoration that goes back to God's word will result in unity (read 2 Kings 23:1-3; 2 Chron. 34:29-32). The unity that is encouraged in the Bible is always a unity of two or more persons who first agree (Amos 3:3) on God's word. God's people who will not be "reformed" are people who "walk contrary" to God's word (read Lev. 26:23-24). Thus, reformation (or restoration) is predicated upon walking by God's word. When people walk in agreement with God's word, unity will follow. Division, on the other hand, is caused when someone teaches something "contrary to the doctrine" of God's word (Rom. 16:17-18).
The unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17 is founded upon an agreement of the apostles' words. Jesus said, "believe on Me through their word" (John 17:20; see also verses 6, 8, 14, 17, and 19, for Jesus' emphasis on "word" and "truth"). The Jerusalem church followed the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42) and were unified (Acts 2:46). The unity that Paul pled for in Ephesians 4 is founded upon an agreement with the apostles' words. Paul wrote, "one body … Spirit … hope … Lord … faith … baptism … God" (Eph. 4:4-6). Brethren can be "one" when, and only when, they agree to unite upon the "one faith" of apostles' words (the New Testament). Paul also wrote that "the knowledge of the Son of God" (Eph. 4:13) and "speaking truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) will cause Christians to be "fitly framed and knit together" (Eph. 4:16). Agree on God's word and unity will follow.
Carefully reflect on Paul's admonition in Ephesians 4. We are to be "giving diligence to keep (emph. mine) the unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3). Brethren, unity is already there in the words of the Spirit! We do not create unity. We do not invent ways to have unity with others. We keep (Greek tēreō; literally "to guard") the unity that is already there in God's word! The "unity of the Spirit" (Eph. 4:3; emph. mine) and the "unity of the faith" (Eph. 4:13; emph. mine) is unity belonging to the words of the Spirit and to the words of the faith. Brethren, let us unite on these words, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
1 Good articles have appeared in this journal in years gone by which discuss the proper balance between restoration and unity. See the following: "The Restoration of Unity Among Divided Brethren" by James Adams (Truth Magazine, Jan. 1, 1970, p. 3-6); "Unity through Restoration" by Mike Willis (Truth Magazine, June 9, 1977, pp. 355-357); "Unity Through Restoration" by Ron Halbrook (Guardian of Truth, June 5, 1986, pp. 28-30); and "Unity Through Restoration vs. Unity in Diversity?" by C. G. "Colly" Caldwell (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 2, 1992, pp. 5-6).
2 See "The 'Unity Movements' Distinction Between 'Gospel' and 'Doctrine'" by Mike Willis (Truth Magazine, Oct. 24, 1974, pp. 10-13); "The Gospel/Doctrine Differentiation" by Cecil Willis (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 2, 1992, pp. 13-15); "The Gospel/Doctrine Distinction" by Tom Roberts (Guardian of Truth, June 16, 1994, p. 13-14); and, "The Gospel/Doctrine Distinction as a Basis of a Broadened Fellowship" by Edward O. Bragwell, Sr. (Truth Magazine, Oct. 5, 2000, p. 6).
3 See "Loose Teaching on Sin and Grace Related to the New Unity Movement" by Ron Halbrook (Truth Magazine, Nov. 4, 1976, pp. 698-700); "The New Grace-Unity Movement's Approach to Instrumental Music" by Johnny Stringer (Truth Magazine, June 5, 1980, page, 370-373); "The Grace Unity Movement is Not Dead" by Mike Willis (Guardian of Truth, April 3, 1986, pp. 193, 214-215).
4 See "Continuous Cleansing: The Doctrinal Defense of Unity-in-Diversity" by Mike Willis (Guardian of Truth, Dec. 3, 1992, pp. 706, 724-726).
5 See "The New Hermeneutic" by Chris Reeves (Guardian of Truth, Oct. 6, 1994, p. 21-25).
6 See "Romans 14: How Readest Thou?" by Harry R. Osborne (Guardian of Truth, May 3, 1990, pp. 262-264); "Romans 14 Abused to Accommodate False Doctrine" by Ron Halbrook (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 2, 1992, pp. 27-32); "Romans 14: The Text" by Mike Willis (Guardian of Truth, Oct. 5, 1995, p. 2); "Romans 14: Satan's Trojan Horse For Fellowship with Error" by Tom Roberts (Guardian of Truth, Feb. 16, 1995, pp. 14-17); and, "Does Romans 14 Authorized a Broadened Fellowship?" by Marshall E. Patton (Truth Magazine, Oct. 5, 2000, p. 8).
7 My father, Bill Reeves, wrote this perceptive comment 17 years ago: "Romans 14 has become a magical wand in the hands of many brethren. Simply wave it, and suddenly what is unscriptural for some becomes scriptural for others, and everyone should be praying for each other and encourage the innovator…" ("Perversion of Romans 14 Continues," Truth Magazine, Sept. 7, 2000, p. 1).
8 "The Bounds of Christian Unity (4)," Christianity Magazine, May, 1989, p. 3.
9 Actually, there is a true type of "unity in diversity" found in the New Testament. Christians, for example, with a diversity of opinions over private scruples can be united in practice (1 Cor. 8; Rom. 14) and Christians from a diversity of backgrounds can be united in Christ (Eph. 2:11-22). However, Christians with a diversity of doctrinal beliefs can never be truly united.
10 See "The Impact of Unity Movements on the Church" by H. E. Phillips (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 2, 1986, pp. 27-28); and, "Where 'Unity in Diversity' Will Lead" by Thomas G. O'Neal (Walking in Truth, Jan.-Mar., 2004, pp. 2-11).
Author Bio: Chris Reeves preaches for the Warfield Blvd church of Christ in Clarksville, TN. His website is TheGoodTeacher.com. He can be reached at chrisreevesmail@gmail.com.
