A Preliminary Distant Voice on UNITY – T.B. Larimore
“May the Lord grant that I may die before I sow discord among the brethren. I have never done so yet—never. I have never introduced, advocated, agitated, said, or done anything that could tend to dissever church, family, or friends. I love the sentiment of the son of America Lot chose the cream of the country, all the best of the land. Abraham was satisfied with that which was left, the refuse, rocky and rough. So far as earthly possessions and carnal concessions were concerned, his motto seems to have been: ‘Peace at any price’ in preference to strife among brethren. … {Before we divide} remember that he that soweth discord among brethren is an abomination unto God … Remembering Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Gethsemane—Christ, Calvary, and the cross; remembering, we are dying dust … Remembering the loved who loved us long ago, and all the pure who love us now, remembering that none of us liveth unto himself … let us stand up for Jesus and battle for his cause … let us all be, do, say, and live thus … be one as Jesus and Jehovah are one.” (Sermon on “Unity” in Biographies and Sermons, ed. F. D. Srygley, pp. 43, 46, 49-50).
Summary of the Prosecution’s Case
Our counselor, Steve Higginbotham, approaches the witness but addresses the jury. His goal is to establish what he feels is the bedrock for his case—biblical authority. His opening statement really states the matter quite succinctly: “How one understands the authority of Scripture is the single most important ingredient to achieving unity among God’s children … Any attempts to ignore the centrality of the authority of Scripture, will ultimately fail” (p.9).
In the next section we quickly learn from our counselor that we are not talking about the authority of the Bible per se but rather the realm of “the silence of Scripture.” He points to the American Christian Missionary Society and instrumental music as the sources of rupture of fellowship a “century ago.” The lawyer leads our witness quite affectively to accepting the conclusion that silence is “prohibitive” rather than “permissive.” It is not necessary to appeal to any learned human for a correct answer; rather he says it can be found directly from Scripture itself. To prove that silence is necessarily prohibitive Hebrews 7.14, Joshua 6.1-26 and the flood narrative of Genesis is appealed to.
Counselor Higginbotham knows he has, perhaps, proved to much with his arguments regarding the prohibitory nature of silence. Thus he immediately tries to convince the jury of a distinction between “aides” and “additions.” Returning to Noah’s Ark
With rhetorical flare our counselor closes his speech by revealing the slippery slope that he believes some are on. He asserts that some simply deny the need for biblical authority. And without authority we may end up with instruments, popes, “baptism for the dead,” and animal sacrifice.
The parting words to the jury are chosen carefully indeed. These are the words, “For my part, I will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more than He has commanded me” (quoting Richard Baxter).
Questions & Thoughts from the Jury … If the Judge will Allow
Agreements: First, I want to commend Steve for his faith in the authority of the Scriptures. It is my observation that this kind of “case” or discussion can only take place among a people that takes Scripture with the utmost seriousness. Everyone else would simply dismiss this out of hand! In a moment I will make some counter points to Steve’s case but first we need to recognize that we do have commonality here. And for the record I believe that Rick Atchley and Bob Russell believe in the authority of the Scriptures (I mention them by name because they are mentioned in Seeking True Unity). Indeed they affirm both the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Together Again is many things but it is not the work of unbelieving liberals!
Demurs: Second, for my part it is precisely because I take the authority of the Scriptures seriously that I disagree with his opening statement and central argument. Is it really true that the “authority of Scripture” … according to the Scriptures … is the “single most important ingredient to achieving unity?” Do the Scriptures themselves affirm this? Do they by command? Example? or Inference? I think not. This is not an attack upon the authority of the Scripture rather it is a recognition of what the Scriptures actually say. The counselor has brought an assumption - a presupposition - forward and granted it supreme authority. This foundational assumption cannot be sustained by the Bible.
If within Scripture, within the NT, unity is not based upon the centrality of the authority of Scripture then what is it based upon? It is based upon the Gospel message itself. This truth was fundamental to the Stone-Campbell Movement. Robert Richardson, author of the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, published a small book on the foundational Principles of the Reformation which was widely praised. He notes that the movement set out to demonstrate the “distinction between what may emphatically termed THE CHRISTIAN FAITH and doctrinal KNOWLEDGE” (p. 27). The error of the sectarians, according to the early SCM, was “they suppose this Christian faith to be doctrinal, we regard it as personal … The Christian faith, then, in our view, consists not in any theory or system of doctrine, but in a sincere belief in the person and mission of our Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 44). In one of his articles about the principles of the “current reformation” he makes this truthful and needed observation:
“Men have lost sight of the obvious distinction which is to be made between the Bible and the Gospel. As the Bible contains the gospel, and its ancient records are important in elucidating and confirming it, they have become so intimately associated … that they {sectarians} have lost sight of the just distinction between them … 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; for in those days, the gospel possessed identity, and enjoyed a distinct and determinate character.” (Richardson, “Reformation, IV” Millennial Harbinger [September 1847], 508, his emphasis).
What Richardson Corinth Corinth Corinth makes an interesting study in unity and doctrinal and moral chaos … I dare make the claim that the problems faced by the church in that fair city are magnitudes greater than those facing Churches of Christ internally or Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches
The crux of the matter, as important as it may be (and it is important) is not biblical authority in spite of the counselor’s claim. While addressing the jury he shifts from authority to hermeneutics. Interpretation is a different issue than authority. He is correct when he says “how to interpret the silence” of Scripture (p. 10) is important but it is not true that how one understands silence is the same as authority. If this is the case, the core is not the “centrality of the authority of the Bible” as he stated in the beginning, but rather for his case the real core issue is interpretation in a way that he approves. I do not believe that “division was inevitable!" (p. 10). It was not inevitable in Corinth
Third: About “aids” & “additions?” One of the most interesting matters about silence is that no one is consistent on it. Every thing that Counselor Higginbotham defines as an “aid” other folks with equal zeal for biblical authority call an “addition.” This is a fact. And most interesting of all is that the Bible is “silent” upon a distinction between an “aid” and an “addition.” Paul never gives us any guidelines on how to distinguish between them. The counselor has created an idea then used it to justify his aids while condemning others’ additions. If we are going to be “silent where the Bible is silent” then how can we speak about something the Bible never talks about … aids and additions. For an examination of the “Regulative Principle” that governs this whole area I recommend John Frame’s article: A Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle And in A Gathered People we offer some perspective on this area of hermeneutics as well (Hicks, Melton, Valentine, pp. 110-112, 119-120)
Fourth: The Fear Factor. This to me may be the crucial difference between myself sitting in the jury and the counselor attempting to persuade me of his point of view. I have just as much desire to get “it” right as my brothers Jenkin(s), Sanders, Higginbotham, Greene and Baker. I pray and I study hard because I want to get “it” right. I spent years learning Hebrew, Greek and Latin so I could get “it” right. And at one point in my life I lived in great fear of not having “it” right. I do not seek to do my own thing … I want to do God’s thing. Yet, I do not live in fear of not getting “it” right anymore! In fact I know that I do not have “it” right inspite of my very best efforts to get “it.”
This is the TRUTH the God the Cross reveals in the Death & Resurrection of the Messiah. I have finally come to accept the biblical truth that God would rather let Jesus die than condemn me. And what God did for me he also did for my imperfect brothers and sisters. The wrath of God has been extinguished against my sin (this includes my religious error!). The reason I am the object of God’s mercy is precisely because I don’t get “it.” I am not presuming upon God’s grace rather I am embracing what the Scriptures clearly state themselves.
Higginbotham says, through Baxter, “I will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more than He has commanded me” (p. 15). This reminds me of a few passages from Jesus. Jesus once taught about some servants that did only their “duty.” Even very careful servants confess “we are unworthy servants we have only done our duty” (Lk 17.10). Jesus told another story about three men and a master. Each man is given some money. According to the story we have in Matthew, the Master never told them to do anything with that money. But two servants immediately go out, without any instruction (i.e. authority!) from the master, and begin spending and risking his property. One servant decided to “play it safe” and guarded the master’s money with his life. He would not risk loosing the master’s money, he would not risk the displeasure of the master, rather he protected the master’s money. Is it not interesting that in Jesus’ story it is the men who went out on their own, seeking to enlarge the master’s holdings, were praised and granted even more responsibility! Why did the master not say “how dare you. Who authorized you to spend my money?” Rather we read “Well done, good and faithful (interesting choice of words there!) servant.” Is it not interesting that the servant who did exactly as the master said (nothing!!) is condemned. But why is the servant condemned? He is judged precisely on the basis that he imagined the Master to operate (Matthew 25.14-30). Jesus’ parable speaks volumes about the “fear factor.” The safe servant had constructed an idol of his own making.
Does our salvation depend on having the minutia correct? Only if the blood of Jesus is meaningless. Does our unity depend on the minutia? Only if the blood of Jesus is meaningless.
Final Words
Yes I have said nearly as many words as the prosecution. I am “wondering” out loud about the arguments put forward. I find them unconvincing.
Unity is based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel that saves us and it is the Gospel that broke down the barrier of division to create a unified and new humanity in Christ Jesus. It is the Gospel and not all the issues we argue about determine either our relationship to God or to each other. It is precisely because the Gospel, and not uniform interpretation that allowed there to be a Stone-Campbell Movement in the first place. Because contrary to Counselor Greene’s claims that there was “little difference” between Campbell and Stone’s groups (p. 30) there were deep and profound theological differences between the groups (more on that later). I firmly believe that if that unity meeting was taking place today unity would not happen for the very reason it does not today. But, praise God, they united, as Richardson
Shalom,
0 comments:
Post a Comment