Write The Author
By John Eoff
PERHAPS THE QUESTION SHOULD BE "Who wants unity enough to make the changes necessary to obtaining it?"
Much is proclaimed about unity among Christians both orally and in writing and especially is this so among those of the "Restoration Movement" brotherhood. In reality this movement began as an effort by dedicated persons nearly two centuries ago to unite the Christians among the sects. The utter failure of this movement has been made evident by the sects spawned by it. Obviously, something is wrong with the methods that have been employed in pursuit of this unity.
Unity has been described through two different avenues. One pictures unity of believers as a gift of the Holy Spirit and is a reality in that all are united in Jesus regardless of the divisiveness expressed by the various sects. The other views unity as a close relationship and amenity among the believers, where all accept each other as brothers and maintains a close relationship with each other. Was Jesus just praying for the unity of believers that is accomplished by the Spirit or was he not also seeking the unity of a close, brotherly, personal relationship for his followers? Is the second view of unity of enough importance to justify the implementation of more serious measures in order to achieve it? Let one who doubts its importance consider the waste of energy and money spent by the sects in nothing more than fighting among themselves for members and influence. Let him consider the hatred and the assassination of character resorted to by those of opposing opinions. Let him consider the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere between factions who each confess Jesus as Lord and savior. Can there be any doubt that Jesus included in his prayer a peaceful, loving, tolerant relations among those who believed in him.?
What is basically wrong with the methods that have been employed in the past to implement unity? Some have sought unity through enforced conformity of opinion. This can be successful only to the extent of the power of the enforcer, the sect employing it. Those with divergent opinions can extract themselves from the sect and form a new sect and unity is lost. A similar method has been the proposal of various sects to seduce those in other sects to reject their divergent opinions and adopt the opinions of the proselytizing sect and thus be united in opinion voluntarily. Of course this has no possibility of success because of the strong opposing convictions that separate the brothers in the first place. A third method that is of current popularity, of which much is being said and written, and which is as equally doomed to failure as the two previously mentioned methods, is that of encouraging everyone in the various sects to disagree agreeably. Each should hold his own opinion and give those in the other sects the same honor and recognize each other as brothers and desist in fighting. This has been accomplished to a large extent by some sects but is hindered in other sects by opinions they hold to be basic and of such importance to be a dividing line between them and the others. Of prominence in this area is the role of baptism-whether it is administered to disciples or to sinners. There are also other opinions that can not be compromised by some believers and these constitute a complete road block, for them, to unity with other believers.
Carl Ketcherside began some forty years ago to reject division and encourage each individual in what ever sect he found himself to reject his own personal divisiveness and to accept all penitent believers in any sect. He was not the first to promote this idea but was probably the most zealous. In his view one can retain all his personnel opinions; but he can not make them a test of fellowship. He resolved to stay with his adopted sect but to become non-sectarian and to encourage all those in his particular sect as well as in all the other sects to become nonsectarian or judgmental of others. This is actually a return to the original idea of the founders of the "Restoration Movement," re-introducing their completely failed plea. He maintained, correctly, that no two individuals could have similar opinions on all matters so any unity would have to be acquired allowing for diversity of opinion. He has fought the good fight and exited this life but his writings are becoming more and more popular and other individuals have taken up and continued to express similar sentiments. Unity among believers is no closer now than when he began his campaign.
The methods that have been employed to unite believers all have one fateful fault. None has any possibility of success because they ignore the basic divisive progenitor. The dividing concept employed by the devil almost from the beginning of "the way" is the sect itself. He has no cleverly hidden the sect within the word "church" that it is impossible for most believers to perceive. Near the beginning he seduced the believers into constituting institutions. No institution was a part of "the way" as initiated by Jesus through his apostles. When the first institution was organized the first sect was born. Along with the first institution came division. All believers who became a part of the institution had become something that the other believers were not. There was a division between them. When there became many institutions each had its own members and even if all the believers in one institution were in complete agreement with all the members in another institution they were still members of different entities and thus not united. Later the devil seduced the brethren further by uniting various institutions under central control and the Roman Catholic Church and its eastern brother were the result. Since that time it has been nearly impossible for Christians to conceive of the Lord's body as anything other than an institution. Reformers came along and tried to reform the institution. Then others came along and tried to restore the institution to its original design, not being able to perceive of the original assembly in any way other than an institution (sect). All must fail because in original design the assembly was just that, a group of people with a common faith, not an institution.
If believers are really intent on obtaining unity they have but one course and that is to give up the institution, the church. There is no other choice. There is probably not one in a thousand that is willing to do this. They are too comfortable in the sect where they find themselves or else they try to find a sect that seems better. Many are seeking a more satisfying institution in which to "worship," searching for one that gives them the proper warm religious feeling when they attend. Many articles have been written and distributed by individuals who have discovered the difference between the assembly which Jesus called out and the institutional church, yet even they continue within the institutions "trying to work from the inside to promote change". It is hopeless. Unity can never be realized by changing the institutions. The institutions are what divide. They must go.
It may seem impossible to have an assembly of saved ones without organizing it into an institution. This writer can attest to the fact that it is possible and desirable, even essential if one is serious about unity. He has associated and assembled with others of like mind for the past five years. He was recently made aware of others who are doing likewise who never were members of any institution (church) and traveled a considerable distance to meet with them. Of course some customs were different but there was no divider between "them" and "us". We were one.
Some of the things that will be noticeably absent from groups of called ones that are not organized into institutions are: (1)Church building or property of any kind. (2)Church treasuries (3)Church expenses of any kind (4)Any church conducted business (5)Large assemblies (6)Central control {even on local level} (7)Taxation of the members by the church. Probably lacking will be a preacher because the group will probably revert to the New Testament principal of meeting to edify one another and think of ways to encourage one another to love and good works; and besides this, who could hire such a one in the absence of an institution? Each could give support to him (or anyone or anything else) but none could contract for the others to obtain his services. Also lacking will be a board of directors whether called elders, bishops, directors, or what ever, since there will be no business to direct or institution to control. There will be a much closer relationship among the members with more concern with each individual's needs. A collection for some specific need may be taken but not to put into a treasury or designated "the Lord's money".
Who among the churches of the world really wants unity among believers badly enough to go back to the concept of a group of called ones as revealed by the master's ambassadors? How about you? Are you too comfortable in your divisive state to risk change?
Get your own Free Home Page