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
    

SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED

I recall years ago when I was teaching at Bethany College that Perry Gresham, then the president of that institution, told some of us that the leaders of the church around the world should gather and issue a joint proclamation that the church is united!

That is what Thomas Campbell said in his "Declaration and Address," which dates back to 1809 and is one of the founding documents of our Movement. "The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one," he wrote. He saw the church united as a reality, not simply as an ideal. It is the nature of the church to be one; it cannot be other than one. It is an extension of the apostle's affirmation, by way of a question, in 1 Cor. 1:13, Is Christ divided?

Campbell and Gresham were taking a page from Paul. Christ cannot be divided. The church as the Body of Christ is one. There may be sects imposing themselves upon that Body. There may be schisms within its ranks, threatening the life of that Body. But still the church is there, withstanding the onslaught of "the gates of Hades," and it is one.

Here is another "catholic" (yes, indeed, Campbell and Gresham were speaking as "catholics" in referring to the church as necessarily one) that has long been witnessing to the church at large of its inherent oneness. David J. Du Plessis is now 80. Sometime back the pope gave him a gold medal in tribute to his message of unity to the whole church, and Fuller Seminary has now named a Center for him, which will serve as a depository of his books and papers as an envoy of peace among and beyond all denominations. I say "beyond" because his own denomination, the Assemblies of God, excommunicated him when he began to work within the World Council of Churches, only to reinstate him years later when they saw that he was right in insisting that the Pentecostals were not the only Christians.

He says it was a blessing when the Assemblies defrocked him, for he was then in a position to be truly ecumenical. Though a Pentecostal in persuasion and practice, he had been busy all these years telling any denomination that will listen that the Body of Christ is beyond them all, and that all who are in Christ are one in that Body. And that includes the Roman Catholics. When word reached the ears of Cardinal Bea in Rome that David Du Plessis was saying things "that Rome needs to hear," he was invited to the Holy See. He told Rome that unity is in no denomination, no system, no hierarchy, but only in the Holy Spirit. That did not keep the pope, who presides over a system that traditionally holds that unity is possible only in the Holy See, from honoring him as a man of peace and unity.

When Cardinal Bea called Du Plessis a holy man, he protested. But the cardinal insisted, "Since you are a man of the Holy Spirit, you must be a holy man."

When they asked Du Plessis about the "How" of unity, he responded with "Our unity is not based on how; our unity is based on Who." He stresses that since there is but one Head there can be but one Body. The basis of renewal, he says, is in that great promise "Behold, I make all things new," and renewal, he says, is an ongoing process. To all the denominations he presses home the point, Do not think you have arrived.

While Du Plessis is Pentecostal and believes in glossolalia, he is persuaded that Christians can differ on such things and find their oneness in the person of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit within us that makes us one, not theological conformity, he says.

And he says this as if it were his motto, Be separated but not divided, which is similar to a saying of our own pioneers, We are free to differ but not to divide. Du Plessis sees nothing wrong in our separations so long as we accept each other as equals in Christ. He points to his own family as an example. Even though the parents and their six children and the grandchildren are all scattered, still they are united. This is not only expressed with get­togethers on special occasions and by frequent contacts by phone but also by a constant acceptance of each other. It can be the same with Christians. Our love and acceptance of each other will transcend denominational loyalties.

I am convinced that Du Plessis' approach to unity is the only one that will prove effective, and it is really the "Stone­Campbell" position as it was originally set forth. We do not work for unity; we rather accept the Spirit's gift of unity to the church. We are already united with all those who are in Christ. We are one with all those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. We are not united with Baptists nor Methodists nor Church of Christ members but with Christians, all Christians everywhere. Such unity rises above all the sectarian and denominational barriers. Unity is between believers, not structures nor systems nor ecclesiasticisms.

Can it really be any other way? Has it ever been any other way? Wasn't the unity of the early church a "separated but not divided" unity? Was it not so with Paul and Barnabas-separated but not divided? And with Paul and Peter and all those who were "somewhat" in the church-he went his way to the circumcised and they went theirs, separated but not divided. And there are the churches that probably could not have successfully gathered under the same roof, such as Jerusalem and Antioch, but still they were united in Christ, separated but not divided. We all know Christians with whom we had rather not work. They are there and we are here, and it is better that way. But we love and accept each other, separated but not divided.

This is not the same as separatism, which is a separation that says, "Unless you see and do as I see and do I will not accept you as an equal." Separatism dictates no fellowship, no association, no cooperation, no recognition. Separatism is an exclusivism that assumes to have arrived and to have all the truth, and to have anything to do with others would be "fellowshipping error."

An attitude of "separated but not divided" recognizes that because of tradition, race, social status, personal preference, or longstanding theological differences "they" are there and "we" are here, and that this is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. But still, because of our common loyalty to Christ (Can there really be any other test?), we can recognize and treat each other as equals in Christ and perhaps do some things together. While we may not be able to do everything together, we can surely do some things together.

Differences, mostly those passed along to us by our forebears, may keep us separated, but they do not have to divide us in heart and mind. It is being against another that makes for division, while separation may only be circumstantial. Most blacks, for example, do not care to assemble with whites, and many poor Christians are not comfortable in rich churches. Separation without division is, therefore, possible so long as no one is against anybody. This assumes that division, which is named a sin in Scripture, is in the heart and head of man and not merely in outward circumstances. Jesus seemed to think this way when he said "He who is not against me is for me."

Separated but not divided! It might at least serve as a fresh starting point in our thinking. With time we might flesh it out to mean, Separated by circumstances but equal in Christ. Is that not the way it is with all those that believe that Jesus is Lord and who obey him in all things according to their understanding, to quote Alexander Campbell?

(Restoration Review: Vol. 27, No. 5; May 1985)