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
    

A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME

Most of us concede that the primitive church was united. If it consisted of splintered sects there would be little reason to "restore" it. While present­day scholarship points to the diversity of the New Testament church, it nonetheless recognizes a basic unity in that diversity. There was racial diversity in that some were Jews and some were Gentiles; there was social diversity in that some were rich and some were poor, some were free and some were slaves. There were ideological differences in that some came out of paganism, and were slow to give up some of its practices, while others had strong Judaistic foundations, and they too clung to some of its ritual after becoming believers. There were also theological differences, some being "liberal" and others "conservative."

It strikes us as unlikely that one "Church of Christ" minister would circumcise another as a religious rite, and yet this was the case with Paul and Timothy. Nor is it likely that a "gospel preacher" would finance and take part in a service at the Jewish temple in which vows were made, heads shaved, and sacrifices offered, as the apostle Paul did.

And if we are in search of the pattern church to restore, we have our problems, for we have everything from speaking in tongues and baptism for the dead to communal living and love feasts. It can really be haunting to realize that members were struck dead for their sins, as in the Jerusalem church, or sickened and died for "not discerning the Body," as in the Corinthian church. Do we want to restore that kind of retribution to the 20th century church?

The fact is that we are not all that much like the primitive churches, but, then again, they were not much like each other. There are some vast differences between the church in Jerusalem and the one in Corinth. And when we take the congregations across the board we can hardly come up with a consistent Order, whether in reference to organization, name, corporate worship, or life style.

But still we can speak of their unity, which goes far in identifying the nature of unity. It certainly cannot mean seeing everything eye to eye. Paul could lay down the principle, All are one in Christ Jesus, as he referred to the diverse elements (Gal. 3:28). If in that context he could write "There is neither male nor female," which points up the greatest diversity of all, considering the status of the woman in Paul's culture, then we in the 20th century should be prepared to accept the church as united that is very diverse.

Once we grant the unity of the earliest church in spite of its considerable diversity, we are left with the question of the ground upon which it was united. Herein we can identify the basic fallacy, especially among Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, in our efforts toward unity. It is the assumption that unity is based upon the New Testament, which is made to mean a particular interpretation of that portion of Scripture. Even though we are divided into different camps in reference to it, we insist that there is an identifiable Order in the New Testament, and when we "restore" that Order we have unity. That such a plea has never been effective and has left its own advocates divided several different ways does not impede its advocacy.

That unity never has been and never can be based upon a common understanding of New Testament literature is evident enough in the story of the primitive church. The early Christians were united and yet they did not have what we call the "New Testament." How could their unity be based upon what they did not even have? The only Scriptures that the earliest Christians knew anything about was the Old Testament, which can hardly be seen as the basis of their unity and fellowship. Even with the close of the first century there was no recognized canon for the new Testament, and it was at least another century before there was anything like a mutual acceptance of what constituted the New Testament.

Even when there was a "complete" Bible it could hardly be the basis of unity for the simple reason that the rank and file did not have access to it. The blessing we have of looking up something in the Bible goes back no further than the fifteenth century and the invention of the printing press. Even then however the vast majority of believers were too poor to have a Bible of their own. Throughout most of the history of the church the New Testament has not been sufficiently at hand to serve as the bond of union among Christians.

To be sure Christians through the centuries, including those of the earliest church, gathered to hear the Scriptures read, which gradually came to include the New Testament. But this hardly provided for the detailed knowledge of doctrinal issues that is demanded by those who make such knowledge the basis of fellowship. One could hardly be blamed for not being "up on all the issues" when he had no Bible of his own to study. We can only conclude that the contextual knowledge of the earliest Christians of what we now call the New Testament was very limited. Their faith was centered mostly in the fundamental facts of the gospel and what they could learn about Jesus Christ from those who had known him.

The Ground of Unity

This can only mean that Jesus Christ himself was the basis of their faith and the ground of their unity. It was not so much ideas or doctrines about him that united them, but the Christ himself. While we can believe they sought out every crumb of information about Jesus, whether the miracles he wrought or the parables he taught, they did not have to attain a perfect understanding of such things in order to "sanctify Christ Jesus in your hearts as Lord." The person of Christ is larger than anything and everything that was written about him, and it was this, what Jesus was, that gave the church both its unity and its power.

In whatever generation it is the faithful response to Jesus' call "Come, follow me" that makes us disciples. When those who became his apostles responded to that call they did not know much about Jesus, but they knew him. Even when we do not yet know much about the church or baptism or prayer we are Jesus' disciples when we resolve to forsake all and follow him. Surely we are united with all others who take that same step.

This does not minimize the body of doctrine that the early church eventually came to believe. It only puts it in proper perspective. Sound doctrine strengthened the unity and deepened the fellowship. It built up their faith and buttressed their hope. But it was not the basis of their unity in Christ or their fellowship with each other, for this would have restricted unity and fellowship only to those with a certain level of understanding. They were all enrolled in the school of Christ because of their mutual response to the gospel, but they were at different grade levels. To change the metaphor, some were on milk and some solid food. But as in our own families the babes and the mature are one, not because of their level of knowledge but because they have the same parents.

There we have the essence of it. Wherever God has children we have brothers and sisters. We are all united in Christ if we be his disciples, not because of anything we have done but because of what God has done. God's retarded children are as much my sisters and brothers as the bright ones. Even those who out of weakness follow Christ afar off are my spiritual kin. I have brothers in error as well as brothers who are right about everything.

That unity is based upon agreement on the New Testament is a fallacy because it is something that never has been and never can be. As late as 200 A.D. there was still no New Testament canon and some "books" we now accept as Scripture were still treated as doubtful. It wasn't until about 369 A.D. that there was an accepted New Testament such as we now have. It therefore could not have been the basis of the church's unity up to that time. Even if there had been such a New Testament then as we have now, and even if there was perfect agreement on its content, such unanimity could never have been the basis of Christian unity. If a book could have done it, any book, then Christ would not have needed to die.

Thank God that he did not give a book to save the world, but he gave himself in the form of a Person. That Person is the ground of our faith, the basis of our unity, and the source of our hope. There is a Book, a glorious revelation, that tells us of that Person. But it is the wonderful Person of the Bible rather than the Bible itself that unites us. That Book is like a map or a telescope by which or through which we see the Christ. We tragically err when we lose Christ in the Book, allowing some set of "faithful doctrines," which are often only the opinions of some sect, to eclipse the very one the Bible was intended to reveal.

Robert Richardson says some other things that relate to the thesis I am making herein. I will close this article with several quotations from his piece on "Reformation" in the Millennial Harbinger (1847, p. 508).

"Men seem to have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel."

"It should never be forgotten that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles, and not even a New Testament, to distribute; and that there was no such thing among the early Christians as a formal union upon the 'Bible alone.' Nay rather it was a union upon the Gospel alone."

"Let the Bible be our spiritual library; but let the Gospel be our standard of orthodoxy. Let the Bible be our test of Christian character and perfection, but let the Christian confession be our formula of Christian adoption and of Christian union. In a word, let the Bible be to us every thing designated by its Author, but let 'Christ crucified' be not only our peace with God, but our peace with one another."

(Restoration Review: Vol. 28, No. 9; Nov. 1986)