BEING SERIOUS ABOUT UNITY

There is a move underway on the left wing of (particularly institutional) churches of Christ to bring about 'unity' with Independent Christian Churches. Now, unity is a good thing, I think we will agree. And, of course, churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches have common historical roots. This is the centennial of the recognition of the two religious groups being separate, a date that is itself somewhat relative as it was simply the year the US religious census first declared there were two separate groups. It was then simply a recognition of the existing fact of different practices. The wedge issue between the two has been the use of instrumental music in public worship, churches of Christ maintaining the practice of a capella singing only. Now while this has been the most visible issue of separate practice, the real root of these divisions, as historian Dr. David E. Harrell has often noted, is more findamental. Those who practice so differently do so because they approach the Bible differently. The wedge issue simply is a way that manifests itself, but you find also different attitudes and approaches from the two different groups.

Those who currently are pushing for unity between the groups are doing so with the attitude that this unity would be a good in and of itself, a good that trumps any other good. But Drew Kizer makes an excellent point about the Price of Unity:

Whenever reconciliation takes place between two parties, one or both of the parties have to make concessions, which, in effect, are statements that condemn one's own history and practices. This is why [Jeff] Walling is "ashamed" and [Mike] Cope is "sorry." Their capitulation communicates penitence to the other side.

Don't hold your breath waiting on the Christian Churches to make any concessions. They're not changing. They're comfortable right where they are.

He's exactly right, of course. The assumption on the part of those pushing for this unity is that 'conservative' principles have caused it, thus we should repent of these needless restrictions and bring out the guitars. There is no request that the Christian Churches drop the innovation of the instrument out of respect for the conscience of those who do not use it. There is no expectation that the Christian Churches come to 'us' in tears regretting their importation of the practice.

The cost of this kind of unity is principle. Men of no principle can be unitied on everything because nothing matters. I recognize that is an extreme, but the message in this instance is 'this principle does not matter to us' so everyone should drop it and be unified. This, of course, is not about the instrument qua instrument, but rather about a shift in attitudes as discussed above. In fact, I think some in Independent Christian Churches might find that the Wallings, Atchleys and Copes have moved further to the left in their approach than they themselves are willing to go.

The calls to give up practices that lead to division sounds wonderful, but they ignore clear Biblical principle. If someone feels conscience bound by Scripture not to use instruments of music in public worship then it would be a sin for that individual to do so, whether the practice itself is wrong or not. Paul makes this clear in his discussion of conscience issues in Romans 14:23:

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats [meat, nac], because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.(NASB)

There is also a misunderstanding of the very issue of unity. On what level will these churches become unified? Churches of Christ truly are independent, not just calling themselves Independent then having a convention anyway. There is no organization or controlling body above the local congregation. That is where unity resides. I join in joint practice with fellow Christians with whom I can worship in good conscience. Are there differences of understanding and personal practice in local congregations? Certainly there are. This is expected, as we read in Romans 14 and also Ephesians 4. The work of the local congregation to move people from possessing the unity of the Spirit (4:3) only to attaining the unity of the faith (4:13).

This is a perpetual process, only possible on the local level. It strives for an ideal, but it can only be done as long as the joint practice conforms to the individual consciences of the members. I might disagree with someone in the congregation on the issue of the use of instrumental music in worship, but as we are coming to a common understanding of that issue we cannot both practice our views together because it necessitates joint participation.

All of this seems inefficient and messy, but people tend to be that way. The way of being 'efficient' imports solutions that I believe themselves are unscriptural: denominational superstructures, conventions and creeds. I believe that God thinks the perpetual process of building unity through knowledge, faith and principle is good for us spiritually.

Might God accept in final judgment disciples of different practices? I believe he will as Paul makes clear in Romans 14. To argue the necessity of perfect practice is to 1) assume you have it, and 2) ultimately call for works salvation. But what are the limits of what God will accept in His final judgment? That, I do not know. That is for Him to determine ('Who are you to judge the servant of another?'). I do know that He has His limits, and that He will not accept simply anything.

What I am called to do is take seriously what God says in His word, and to practice what I believe God's word teaches. I am also compelled to teach others what I believe God's word commands. For me to abandon matters of Biblical principal and conscience for the sake of an artificial unity certainly is not what God wants.