Seeking True Unity #3: Can’t We all Just Be Christians? The Restoration Plea? – Counselor Phil Sanders

Can’t We all Just Be Christians? The Restoration Plea? – Counselor Phil Sanders

I have kept up the "courtroom" image in this post. I have attempted to maintain a lighthearted yet serious tone ... 

A Preliminary Distant Voice on Unity - Thomas Campbell

“[D]ivision among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antichristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is antinatural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and every evil work.” (Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address, Proposition 10).

A Summary of the Prosecution’s Case

The Counselor bringing the case today is Phil Sanders. Phil is a godly man with a passion for the Lord and has a zeal for what he believes. He has a lively ministry with the Concord Road Church of Christ in the Nashville area. He has pressed the issues for the prosecution before especially through his book Adrift published by the Gospel Advocate Company.

Counselor Phil approaches the jury with a powerful opening metaphor. It is the image of a dish (i.e. the church) that has been dropped and shattered. The implication is, or so it would seem, that not only is the church divided but possibly was even lost (or destroyed). Restorationists put the pick up the pieces and meticulously put the dish back together again. That is by “returning to the truth found in the New Testament.”

We learn, the counselor argues, that early leaders of the restoration movement were weary of all the “bad-mouthing and exclusiveness of the denominations” (p. 17). These men were convinced that hope for “unity” could only rest on “following the truth of God’s word.” Our counselor quotes one early leader, Thomas Campbell, to the affect that only what is “expressly taught and enjoined” could be used as a term of communion (p.18). 

The New Testament warns about perverting the truth of the Gospel. A series of references to Acts 20.29-30; 1 Tim 4.1-3; 2 Tim 3.1-13; 2 Tim 4.1-5; and 2 Pet 2.1-3 are called into the witness stand for the jury to hear. Each of these texts are powerful indeed.

Then we learn that not long after the first century that the simplicity of NT Christianity was perverted in spite of the warnings. “Century by century the church moved further away … It no longer followed God’s pattern in the New Testament but became something very different” (p. 19, my emphasis. Recall the dish/church that ceased being the church).

The counselor asks us to reflect upon the question of patternism. He claims that many suggest there is no pattern at all! For them “sprinkling is as good as immersion because the heart is all that matters” (p. 22). Some suggest that we can celebrate the Supper on a day other than Sunday. But there is a pattern and the pattern is fixed and appeals to Romans 16.17-18 (I think the counselor meant 6.17-18); 2 Thess 2.15; and 2 Tim 1.13 are called to prove this idea.

In his closing argument we learn, just as the opening illustration implied, that restoration as our counselor seems to understand it is not really a unity effort after all. Rather it is evangelism. “The work of restoration, then, is actually soul-winning” (p. 23). This is the logical outcome of his view. Those “out there” are not Christians in the first place and unity will happen when, and if, they happen to accept the prosecution’s case.

Observations and Questions from the Jury … the Judge has been Gracious

As I sat in the jury box hearing the arguments from Counselor Sanders I heard concern, as I did from Steve Higgenbotham, for biblical authority. In many ways Phil continues the thought of Steve that biblical authority is the “central issue” in unity. This as I pointed out before is simply an unproved and indeed unbiblical assumption. And as I pointed out to Counselor Steve this discussion and the attendant case would simply be impossible apart from a shared conviction for the authority of Scripture. Indeed it is nearly inconceivable that this case would make it to court in many a religious body. I point out the obvious because sometimes the obvious is overlooked and/or denied outright. At the very least it may be implied that only one side (i.e. the prosecution) truly respects Scripture. This is, of course, special pleading.

Firsts: Images, Metaphors & Ironies. My questions about the prosecutions case began with the opening metaphor. I agree that the church fell far below what God intended it to be. Yet I do not believe that Christianity is like Humpty Dumpty, who had a great fall and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men were not able to put him back together again. What if the church is really more like Israel in the Hebrew Bible … indeed I believe the story of the church is simply the continuation of the story of Israel. Many lessons can be gained through understanding the story of the church through the story of Israel. There was no “golden age” when the People of God had it all together either in the Torah, the Prophets nor Acts or Epistles. Israel was stiff-necked and rebellious since the moment Moses laid eyes on her and the same is true of the people we read in the NT. As bad as Israel got she was still God’s people. One wonders if the nadir of the Hebrew Bible is Judges or Hosea … or could it be that those are the high points because we see that when Israel was at her worst Yahweh was at his best. If Israel did not cease to be the people of God then chances are the dish may have become dirty but it was not shattered. The cement that holds the People of God together is not their covenant keeping but the faithfulness of the Lord. Most of the NT exists precisely because the early church was not pristine. The churches in Corinth, Galatia, Jerusalem were rife with moral problems, prejudice, false teaching and the like. Yet even the Corinthians are hailed as “saints” and the “church of God.” I dare say, again, that the Corinthians had far more serious issues than either Woodmont Hills or Richland Hills.

The church is not an organization like Standard Oil that will simply disappear when the board ceases to operate. The church of God is not reduced to organization in the New Testament. In fact there is surprisingly little in the NT that is actually concerned about that kind of stuff. I do not say there is NO concern just that it is not a major theme in the NT.

One wonders, if there are any kinds of parallels in the story of Israel and the Story of the Church, that simply a change in governmental structures can cause God’s church to be something “different?” I am no fan of the monarchical bishop, but I know enough about early church history to know that the rise of the bishop did not come out of a “departure” from apostolic faith but rather as a defense of the faith against Gnosticism. Ignatius certainly loved the Lord Jesus enough to die in the ring for him and yet he believed the bishop was of critical importance in preserving the faith … Ignatius’ motives certainly seem to have been higher than Israel’s when they demanded a change in government simply because they wanted to “be like the nations.” Yet did a change of government mean Israel was no longer Israel? Did God like the change? No! Did he cast off his people because of it? No!

Since I bring up Ignatius another point comes to mind. What New Testament did Ignatius have that he was supposed to “have left the truth” contained therein? He knew the “OT” by heart seemingly but the writings of the NT it would seem he knew only a handful of them. The NT, as we know it today, did not exist in his day. This is a major problem that is all to easily brushed aside by the prosecuting counsel. 

It is ironic that Counselor Phil should appeal to the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement. It is true that they were weary of narrowness, “bad-mouthing and exclusiveness.” That word “exclusiveness” coming from Phil is interesting indeed. Some information briefs sent to the court indicate that the prosecution holds to a position that is far more “exclusive” than what those early “church leaders” so loudly protested. Indeed one of those leaders, Alexander Campbell, came under fire for not being exclusive enough. Defending himself he writes in the Christian Baptist,

“This plan of making our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the ‘elect few’ who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism …To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle, to associate with a few units, tens or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical nunnery” (To an Independent Baptist, Christian Baptist 3 [May 1, 1826], 204)

I know that AC is not inspired … but if the prosecution can quote “early church leaders” then so can the questioning jury. Truly, in light of the entire speech of Counselor Sanders one has to wonder if much progress has been made from the narrow exclusiveness that those early leaders so valiantly protested?

There are further ironies in the prosecutions case. Counselor Sanders quotes Thomas Campbell in saying that only “what is expressly taught” on Christians can be enjoined as a test of fellowship (p. 18). Has it dawned on anyone else in the jury that the issue that brought this case to trial does not meet this criteria. The argument against instrumental music does not rest on any expressly taught truth rather it is based on silence and historical inference. Indeed not only does this Thomas Campbell say that only what is expressly taught can be held as a test of fellowship, Counselor Sanders overlooks what he says just three propositions down in the Declaration & Address

“{A}lthough inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection … for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.” (Proposition 6).

These “early church leaders” who protested so mightily against narrow sectarian “exclusivism” found that exclusive attitude largely rooted in inferences that were used to exclude family members from fellowship. Now Counselor Phil and company are doing exactly what these leaders protested (and if Phil is to be believed Campbell and company were right in that protest … thus in the spirit of those leaders I will continue their protest when Phil does exactly what those denominational exclusivists did in 1809.)

But is it not so easy to fall into the sectarian trap? I do not claim to have escaped it. I find the demon of sectarianism rising in my own consciousness far more than I am pleased with … Thank God for the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in crucifying this demon to the cross of Christ!! But the trap is easy to slip into. Among the various baits that are used in this trap is one that appeals, ironically, to both our sense of loyalty to the biblical text and to our pride of understanding … we begin to believe in our own infallibility. Thus what is born is a “Pope” in the belly. He attacks both the quest for truth and the freedom to pursue it under the guise that all has been mastered already. Barton Stone, an “early church leader” was so concerned about this that when he started his Christian Messenger in November 1826 the first article to confront the reader addressed it.

“We must be fully persuaded, that all uninspired men are fallible, and therefore liable to err … Luther, in a coarse manner, said that every man was born with a Pope in his belly. By which I suppose he meant, that every man deemed himself infallible … If the present generation remain under the influence of this principle, the consequences must be that the spirit of free inquiry will die – our liberty lie prostrated at the feet of ecclesiastical demagogues” (Christian Messenger 1 [November 1826], 2)

When I survey the doctrinal war zone of the Churches of Christ it looks like the wasteland of Verdun … congregations alienated, bodies of brethren who rather exchange “gospel bullets” than the kiss of peace, armies exhausted from the bloodshed, no one a victor … except the Prince of Demons. The issues range from cups to singing groups to orphan homes to, in this case, instrumental music. And I see each group, seemingly, acting as if they have a Pope in the belly … every one is mistaken except them!!! Everyone is in need of repentance … except them. Shades of Jonah.

But our Counselor is correct, our early church leaders protested this kind of stuff. And rightly so. I join their protest.

Seconds: Questions About those Texts? In truth these texts do not, not one of them, suggest that instrumental music is wrong. I believe every one of them. But they are being forced into a service that Paul and Peter did not write them for. First Timothy 4.1-3 speaks of abstainers (of marriage and food). This is known as asceticism. Other things usually went along with that false position. Again it is ironic that Phil is the abstainer in this case (of IM). How this text addresses, either for or against, IM is a stretch … except where some make laws of prohibition that God did not make. Second Timothy 3 is another one that after it is read one wonders what Phil is saying about Atchley. Indeed more than likely this text is talking about the same folks described in 1 Tim 4. Can Phil demonstrate that Rick is a “lover of money” or abusive? or a “lover of pleasure”? that his is unforgiving? unholy? This is extreme even for the prosecution. I submit to my fellow jurors that this text has been hijacked. Indeed I think the rest of the texts basically have been lifted out of context and misapplied. It is bad methodology to make a doctrine out of our inference, then declare that disloyalty to our inference is actually disloyalty to God. Then we find texts that address false teaching for sure (but usually we are not left to inference in identifying that false teaching) and creatively apply it to our inference. That is great prosecution but bad theology . But it is always helpful to your case when you can paint your opponent (i.e. brother!!) in the worst possible light.

Thirds: Unity, Truths & The Truth. What I am about to suggest from the jury box is likely to be the most controversial thing so far. I have already suggested it when asking Counselor Higgenbotham some questions. His partner, Phil, has suggested repeatedly that the church Jesus built “could never approve of unifying the truth with error, because Jesus would never approve of unifying with error” (p. 20).

At first sight this sounds logical and spiritual and correct. And I am deeply inclined to it myself. But as I reflected on the story of Jesus in the Gospels and the church recorded in the pages of the NT, I began to have doubts about its accuracy. One wonders for example if Jesus had gracious fellowship with the Twelve walking around Galilee? Were these men free from doctrinal error? Did they have the right conception of what “messiah” meant? Did they have dreams of militaristic glory for the kingdom? After all the Gospels are replete with stories of how “quick” these disciples were and Jesus never bemoaned how thick headed they were! If Jesus never had fellowship with error one wonders what Judas was doing at the Passover/Last Supper? Was this not an “act of worship”? Clearly Sanders statement is in need of qualification for the Twelve had serious religious errors flowing through their brains.

What about Paul? Did he ever fellowship those in doctrinal error? The answer to this is obvious for anyone that reads his letters. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly “we” in Churches of Christ are to pull the fellowship plug especially in light of 1 Corinthians … whose relevance is often simply dismissed. Yet I cannot get over the error that Paul did in fact fellowship. Look at what is contained in this letter:

1) They had division and partyism (baptism played a key role in this schism)
2) They had "issues" with Paul's authority and apostleship
3) They not only had sexual perversion but openly approved of it as a sign of superior wisdom
4) They had lawsuits in public court destroying the unity and witness of the Body
5) They had problems regarding sexuality, marriage and asceticism
6) They had folks who still had not accepted the doctrine of monotheism (cf. 8.7)
7) They had doctrinal issues regarding worship: problems with the Lord's Supper
8) They had huge issues over spiritual gifts and the worship assembly
9) They even had folks who denied the resurrection!
10) They seem to have had a great lack of love for one another

Did Paul fellowship error?? Yes he did! That does not mean he approved it or endorsed it. But there is no way to get around that he was in fellowship with the Corinthians. If the prosecution could say of Rick or Bob Russell what Paul did of the Corinthians what a different world we would live in! Here is Paul’s language for this messed up church: “To the church of God . . . to those SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus . . ." Paul then says "I ALWAYS thank God for you because of his grace given you in Jesus . . ." Those are some remarkable words from Paul. Paul does not give thanks because the Corinthians got everything right or anything right. He thanks God for the grace that has been given them.

One text needs further looking at though because it highlights this idea of unity on biblical authority. Though most simply read over chapter 8 as an ancient and arcane discussion about idols that is to miss the point greatly. Idols are literally nothing in biblical theology! It is interesting that Paul sets up a contrast between “knowledge” and “love” (v.1) clearly anticipating chapter 13. It just so happens that in chapter 8 the “knowledge that puffs up” is correct biblical Truth! But there are folks within the Corinthian church that have not fully made the transition from a pagan worldview to one built upon “truth” and “knowledge.” Paul even says, paraphrasing the Shema (Deut 6.4), that “for us” there is truly one God. The issue is not simply food but idolatry and monotheism (cf. Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians, pp.190-196). These folks in Corinth thought (and acted upon that belief), incorrectly, that the idols was in fact something.

Paul makes this crystal clear in v.7 “But not everyone knows this.” What is that is not know in the context of that sentence? It can only be that biblical truth, testified throughout the “Old Testament” that there was only one God.

This is a most interesting case in Corinth. Paul could have easily produced dozens of texts (Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, etc) to establish unity on biblical authority and the “truth” of only one God. But he did not do this. This is not some minor truth either … this is what might be called “major.” But Paul recognized something that the prosecution has utterly failed to recognize. Truth is always true but not all truth is equally important. Error is always error but not all error is equally important. There is a pecking order even in the Bible … even in the NT. In the case of 1 Corinthians 8 Paul clearly takes the side of the one who is in demonstrable biblical error. Why does he do this? Because for Paul there was an Ultimate Truth and he states it in v.11 

“So this weak brother (i.e. WRONG brother/in error brother!) for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge (i.e. correct biblical truth!!).

Paul does not accuse these brothers of outright idolatry but he does say they did not fully accept one of the basic truths of the Bible. It is also clear that Paul does not agree with these brothers, he knows they are wrong. And this is far greater than instrumental music! Paul had no trouble excising the immoral brother … So Why is that Paul did not simply boot these clearly in the wrong brothers from the church? Why did he not simply tell them to embrace the “truth” and “get over it.” Why is it that he actually rebukes those who are biblically correct? The reason for this is because for Paul was a Truth that trumped all others. Paul did not have unity with these weak brothers on the basis of the “centrality of biblical authority.” Paul had unity with them because of the “centrality” of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and their faith in him. This was the basis of unity and fellowship.

Alex Wilson, a member of one of those cast of “portions” of the Family of God commented “How Can We Be Saved If Our Doctrines are Wrong?” “Legalism nearly always results in sectarianism and strife. Our bitter bickering and blacklisting were rooted in the feeling that salvation depends on being doctrinally correct! How could God save a person who believed wrong doctrines?!” (Wilson’s Essay is located Here). But I agree with Paul and Monroe Hawley who said “This I know! God is a God of grace, and if I am saved, it will not be because of my perfect obedience, but because of his grace in which I am redeemed in spite of my lack of knowledge or my imperfect actions” (Is Christ Divided? pp. 96-97). This is the very reason Paul can write as he did in 1 Cor 8. Knowledge, even correct biblical truth, can puff up. But love builds up.

 

Final Words

I think Phil’s illustration of the dish highlights the weakness of his entire position. Let me switch metaphors to illustrate. The prosecutions theology might be called the balloon theory of theology. Balloons are inherently fragile entities. Tension along the surface of the balloon is fairly equal. Because of this these balloons are easily threatened. Balloons inflated with gas blows apart when punctured by a single pin - at any point on its surface! The balloon cannot endure even the tiniest of ruptures anywhere. When pricked the entire balloon explodes with considerable force destroying itself. In the same way when ones theology makes inference the same weight as anything else it does not surprise that one “departure” from that pattern blows the entire structure apart. As one once put it, one digression from the “pattern” “makes one an apostate from our ranks.” No wonder the dish was destroyed! But since balloons are so inherently fragile perhaps this explains why some, like the prosecutions lawyers, are so out to put protective “hedges” around the balloon.

“I blush for my fellows, who uphold the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all Christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ …”(Barton W. Stone, “Remarks,” Christian Messenger [August 1835], 180).

I believe in the “restoration plea.” I believe that God is far more concerned about our being resident aliens in this age than playing or not playing. I have no, and I mean no, desire to worship with an instrument. I don’t seek it and I don’t want it. But I recognize it is not a test of fellowship and that I and others do unite on the Ultimate Truth … the one who said he was THE truth … I cannot explain 1 Corinthians 8 any other way.

J. N. Armstrong asked W.E. Brightwell if could have fellowship with a person who offered animal sacrifices? Paul did it, apparently the early church did it, James suggested it to Paul ... question for Phil, "Did Paul worship with instruments when he offered that sacrifice in the temple? Could you fellowship the apostle Paul?"

See Seeking True Unity #1 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #2 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #4 HERE

From one seeker to another in the quest for greater understanding and unity,

Bobby Valentine