Introduction
1. IT BEGAN IN SCOTLAND
   
2. THOMAS CAMPBELL WRITES HIS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
   
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE "DECLARATION AND ADDRESS"
   
4. PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCUMENT
   
5. HISTORIC NOTES ON OUR FIRST CHURCH
   
6. "LET CHRISTIAN UNITY BE OUR POLAR STAR"
   
7. THE NOBLEST ACT IN BARTON STONE'S LIFE
   
8. LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER
   
9. CHRISTIANS IN BABYLON
   
10. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
    
11. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAMPBELL PLEA
    
12. THE DEATH OF A DREAM
    
13. THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS
    
14. A MUDDLED MOVEMENT
    
15. THE AUTHORITY TOTEM
    
16. THE PARTY SPIRIT
    
17. THE BED OF PROCRUSTES
    
18. OUR COSTLIEST SIN: EXCLUSIVISM
    
19. RESTORATION OR REFORMATION
    
20. A BOY LEARNS THE MEANING OF BROTHERHOOD
    
21. THE BUTTING BRETHREN
    
22. ANALYSIS OF LEGALISM
    
23. THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    
24. THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP
    
25. ON THE ROCKS
    
26. WITHDRAWING FROM THE DISORDERLY
    
27. CAUSING DIVISIONS
    
28. TWO GREAT ERRORS
    
29. UNION IN TRUTH
    
30. ONE BODY IN CHRIST
    
31. UNITY AND IDENTITY
    
32. UNITY IN DIVERSITY
    
33. IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
    
34. THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS
    
35. MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS?
    
36. WHAT DIFFERENCES DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?
    
37. THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP
    
38. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE UNIMMERSED?
    
39. OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"
    
40. "OUR BROTHERS IN THE DENOMINATIONS"
    
41. WHAT IS "OUR FELLOWSHIP"?
    
42. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
    
43. I WOULD ABDICATE
    
44. A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME
    
45. CAN WE BE UNITED AND NOT KNOW IT?
    
46. SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED
    
47. THE ONE CHURCH INDIVISIBLE
    
48. UNITY WILL COME, BUT
    
49. IF NOT BROTHERHOOD, THEN CO-EXISTENCE
    
50. THIS IS OUR GLORY!
    
51. THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE CROSS
    

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

There may be some game­playing in that title, a game called tautology, for unity by its very nature has to be diverse. It is like saying "each and everyone" when only one of those pronouns is necessary, or like widow woman which is bad English. Unity is a union or oneness of things that are different, like members of a family being one or a man and wife being one.

It is odd, therefore, to see some of our brethren write woefully about the "unity in diversity heresy." Either they simply are not thinking or they have something in mind far afield of what is usually meant by the term. True, a move toward unity could be too diverse. "What unity has Christ with Belial?" asks the apostle, "or what union has a believer with an unbeliever?" We know of no one among us that refers to "unity in diversity" except in reference to Christians, people who are in Christ. This has been the genius of our people's plea from the outset, that all Christians can be united, despite differences. No one is suggesting that we should seek unity with unbelievers, but only with other Christians, folk who love and obey Jesus Christ.

I have no interest in uniting with Methodists, Baptists, Roman or Greek Catholics, Mennonites, or whatever, but only with Christians, who are surely among these denominations as well as among ourselves. I do not even have any interest in uniting with Church of Christ or Christian Church folk, but only with true believers. It is noteworthy that the Scriptures never speak of churches or denominations uniting, but believers in Christ. I am a Campbellite on this point, for the old reformer, while not disparaging the union of sects, sought the unity of Christians, for that is what Jesus prayed for. He observed that there might be a unity of the churches without a unity of Christians, but never a unity of Christians without a unity of the churches, for oneness in Christ transcends and even destroys the party spirit.

Our own history is replete with instances of unity in diversity. In recent essays in this column we have recounted differences between our pioneers, whose tombs we garnish. Not only differences between themselves, which did not rupture their fellowship, but differences between their views and practices and our various party lines today. One essay contended that there would be no way for Alexander Campbell to be accepted by many Churches of Christ today since he did not believe that baptism was absolutely essential to salvation, was not himself baptized for the remission of sins, believed there were Christians in the sects, and served for some sixteen years as president of our first missionary society. Thomas Campbell could not be fellowshipped for most of the same reasons and also because he was a Calvinist in his theology.

Barton W. Stone believed in "open membership" or "ecumenical" membership, which would cause him grave difficulties among the Christian Churches as well as Churches of Christ. Many of the preachers in the Stone movement, great and good men like David Purviance, never did accept the Campbellite emphasis on "baptism for remission of sins." They immersed believers, but did not accept or preach that doctrine, which would be enough to bar them from the faculties of our schools of preaching.

We have shown that even John W. McGarvey, who has scholarships named for him in our Church of Christ colleges, was a strong supporter of the missionary society, even if adamantly opposed to instrumental music. To be faithful in our ranks you have to be both anti­society and anti­organ! By the way, McGarvey was also a "one­cup" man. Now who will claim him? I will! I accept him and love him as within the fellowship of the redeemed in heaven because he is in Christ and my brother. That he believed the Supper should be served in one cup and that singing should be acappella only has nothing whatever to do with his being within the fellowship of Christ. But I don't like the way he treated some of his fellow editors, who are also my brothers, but I doubt if we'll discuss those things when we meet. If so, I'm sure there would be things in my editorial ministry that he would not appreciate. If we all had to wait for mutual approbation of each other's viewpoints to be brothers, then brotherhood would forever elude us.

There is in our history a noble instance of unity in diversity. In fact there might have been no enduring Restoration Movement had it not been for this event, the union of the Stone and Campbell movements in 1832. Had they not had much in common there would, of course, have been no union. Both groups made Christ their only creed, rejecting human names and creeds, and they made the Bible their only rule of faith and practice. They shared a passion for the unity of the church. They had both turned from sprinkling to immersion and were seeking to recover the primitive ordinances of the church.

But there were some substantial differences:

1. The Stone people were much more emotional in their preaching, even using a mourner's bench, while the Campbell churches were more rational. Many of the former thought the latter lacked "heart religion."

2. The Stone group had an ordained ministry, believing that only an ordained minister can baptize or serve Communion, while the other group was anticlerical and believed any Christian can serve at the Table and baptize.

3. The Stone churches wore the name Christian, believing this to be the divinely­appointed name, while Campbell and his folk called themselves Disciples. This was a rather serious difference since Campbell saw "Christian" as a nickname given by the world. This was resolved by the Movement eventually using both names.

4. The Disciples from the very first Sunday at Brush Run served the Supper each first day. The Christians served Communion on a quarterly basis. The Campbell practice eventually prevailed in the united churches.

5. The Christians had a much more open view of the Spirit's ministry in conversion and the life of the believer, as would be suggested by the mourner's bench method. The Disciples in those early days had a "word only" view of the Spirit's work, or something close to that. Stone said in afteryears that if Campbell had in his early years taught on the Spirit what he did later in life the Movement would have been much more successful.

6. The Christians were more concerned for unity, the Disciples more interested in the restoration of the ancient order. They helped each other to find a balance between the two and thus became the first people in all history to plead for unity on the basis of restoration.

These differences were as substantial as anything that divides us today, and yet they were a uniting people while we remain a dividing people. Their secret was a simple one: they learned that unity can be realized only in the essentials of the faith, allowing for differences in the non­essentials. This is not to say that the things they differed on were not important, but they recognized that things can be important without being essential. They worked toward more agreement, which they gradually achieved, but it was as a united people and within the fellowship. Had they waited until they saw everything alike, we might not have had our Movement. This bit of history, along with similar instances of unity in diversity in the New Testament itself, would help us to overcome a damaging fallacy: that we must reach agreement on everything or most everything before we can be in fellowship. Their way is better, which is the way of Scripture: Work out the differences that need to be worked out within the fellowship.

We have difficulty accepting disagreements among Christians as inevitable. Since the apostles themselves the church has not seen eye to eye on lots of things, some of them rather significant if not essential. Paul and Barnabas had to go their separate ways, but that doesn't mean that they "withdrew" from each other. There will always be differences among us, this side of "the millennial church" at least. It is only a question of how we are going to respond to them.

We have standing orders from the apostles: "And to all these add love, which binds all things together in perfect unity. The peace that Christ gives is to be the judge in your hearts; for to this peace God has called you together in the one body" (Col. 3:14­15, TEV).

It is love that unites, not doctrinal agreement. Love perfectly unites that which is divided. Even if people should reach perfect agreement on all the points of doctrine, this would not mean perfect unity. Only love made for perfect unity, and this when folk may be quite diverse in their interpretation of much of the Bible. Stone and Campbell even differed on the nature of Christ, but they did not allow this to rupture their fellowship in Christ. Love united them!

These standing orders remind us that there is a judge that presides in our hearts, a judge that arbitrates for us in reference to our sisters and brothers. The judge is Peace, and we will capitalize it since it is a presiding judge. It is the Peace of Christ that judges other believers, accepting or rejecting them. This is why we dare not reject anyone that Christ rejects. The party or sect that we may belong to is not to preside as judge in our hearts, rejecting all those who do not toe the party line or who do not properly mouth all the shibboleths.

God has called us together, not into a sect, but into the one Body. We accept each other on that basis, that together we have been called into one Body. For this we are to be thankful, the apostolic orders go on to say. It is a lovely thing to be laid on us, thankfulness. As you read these words I hope you are thankful that the Lord has called you into His church, that He has given you sisters and brothers to accept and love, and that His peace rules as judge in your hearts.

If we follow these apostolic injunctions we cannot long remain a divided people. Our forebears learned this lesson and thus preserved the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If they plugged into God's power plant and filled their hearts with love and enthroned Peace as the presiding judge within them, why can't we do something about the divisions among us?

(Restoration Review: Vol. 20, No. 10; Dec. 1978)