Unity in Christ, Not Unity in Diversity

Unity in Christ, Not Unity in Diversity

By Mike Willis, Editor (tmmikewillis@gmail.com)

From the beginning of the 

nineteenth century restoration 

movement, unity has been 

on the hearts of Christians in 

America. They were always troubled by 

the denominational divisions among 

Christians. The restorationist solution 

to denominational division was unity 

through the restoration of the ancient 

order. Thomas Campbell wrote in the 

Declaration and Address as follows:

But this we do sincerely declare, that 

there is nothing we have hitherto 

received as matter of faith or practice, 

which is not expressly taught and 

enjoined in the word of God, either 

in express terms, or approved 

precedent, that we would not 

heartily relinquish, that so we might 

return to the original constitutional 

unity of the christian church 

(Declaration and Address, 10-11).

These men took seriously Jesus’ prayer 

for unity among His disciples (John 

17:20-21) and the condemnation in 

Scripture of religious divisions (1 Cor. 

1:10-13; 11:18; 3:4; 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Rom. 

16:17; Acts 15:1; 2 Tim. 3:5). They 

thought that unity among God’s people 

could be attained and maintained by 

the restoration of the ancient order.

James Mathes wrote,

If all would consent to give up their 

human isms that now divide them, 

we should come together in happy 

union upon God’s own foundation. . . . 

I, therefore, propose the “Bible – the 

whole Bible, and nothing but the 

Bible” as the platform and bond of 

union. In making this proposition, 

I offer a platform, that you all 

acknowledge the best one on earth; 

nay, the only one that is infallible. . . . 

In accepting it, no one is called upon 

to make more sacrifice than others. 

All are required to sacrifice their 

human isms, and those party names 

and sectarian peculiarities, which 

distinguish one sect from another, 

and all are required to take the word 

of God alone as the rule of their lives 

(The Western Preacher, 145, 150).

The Scriptures teach that “There is 

one body and one Spirit, just as you 

were called in one hope of your calling; 

one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one 

God and Father of all, who is above all, 

and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 

4:4-6). The same message of Christ was 

to be preached in all of the churches 

(1 Cor. 4:17). The apostles exhorted 

preachers to preach the word that they 

had received from the apostles (2 Tim. 

2:2). The restoration solution was not 

attractive to many denominational 

folks who were more wedded to their 

creeds and denominational positions 

and practices than they were to Christ. 

Within the restoration movement itself, 

a second generation demonstrated 

that they were more wedded to their 

missionary society and mechanical 

instruments of music in worship than 

they were to maintaining the unity of 

the Spirit in the bond of peace. The 

threw aside the restoration principle as 

a means of attaining and maintaining 

unity among Christ’s disciples. 

The restoration principle was replaced 

by ecumenism, as men lost faith in 

the restoration plea, thinking that 

the plea itself led to division. Alfred T. 

DeGroot wrote, “...we may conclude that 

the more specifically the restoration 

plea has been defined in terms of 

governmental, organizational, and 

ritualistic patterns of behavior, the less 

success it has had as an effective and 

cohesive force in the Christian world” 

(The Restoration Principle, 160).

Turning aside from the restoration 

principle, many followed the 

denominational model of the 

ecumenical movement. The ecumenical 

approach to unity teaches that almost 

all Christian churches agree on the core 

doctrines of Christianity (that certainly 

is far from the truth at the beginning 

of the twenty-first century) but have 

their individual denominational 

dogmas, fellowships, and organizations. 

The ecumenical plea required that 

every denominational congregation 

should acknowledge that there are 

Christians in all denominations based 

on their common understanding of 

the core body of beliefs; they should 

agree to disagree on their peculiar 

denominational beliefs and practices. 

The position was defended on the 

basis of a gospel/doctrine distinction 

that some thought could be justified 

in Scripture (see C.H. Dodd’s [1884-

1973] book, The Apostolic Preaching 

and Its Development, in which he 

urged that a firm distinction be 

made between gospel and doctrine). 

Denominationalism followed the 

ecumenical efforts to practice 

unity in doctrinal diversity with 

other Christian denominations; the 

ecumenical movement, however, 

was not an interfaith movement 

that sought a means of achieving 

religious unity with non-Christian 

religions. The achievement of the 

ecumenical movement was that most 

m

denominations became accepting 

of one another – they recognized 

as Christians those in Christian 

fellowships outside their own.

However, the principles of ecumenism 

eroded faith in Christ. The very same 

arguments that allow unity in spite 

of doctrinal differences led these 

“Christians” to become tolerant 

of differences in gospel, what they 

labeled as the core teachings about 

Jesus. As modernism advanced, 

denominational pastors gave up 

belief in the miracles of the Bible and 

the inspiration of Scripture. These 

“Christians” leaders perceived that 

they were just as disagreed about 

such core gospel issues as the virgin 

birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 

and whether or not one could be 

saved without saving faith in Jesus 

Christ as they were about the peculiar 

denominational doctrines of each 

sect. Soon Christian denominations 

began reaching out in “dialogue” with 

those in non-Christian religions and 

began to accept those in non-Christian 

religions, just the same as they accepted 

those in Christian denominations 

with whom they disagreed. 

Those in the Christian Churches who 

had rejected the restoration movement 

because it led to divisive soon found 

themselves dividing. The Disciples of 

Christ moved into the mainstream of 

Protestant denominationalism (which 

denied the inspiration of the Scriptures 

and the miracles of Jesus), whereas the 

Independent Christian Churches still 

adhered to the inspiration of Scripture, 

although they long ago had decided that 

they were “Christians only, but not the 

only Christians.” After setting aside the 

restoration plea as a means of attaining 

and maintaining Christian unity because 

it was too divisive, they experienced 

a major division among themselves; 

rejecting the restoration plea did 

not prevent the Christian Churches/

Disciples of Christ from dividing.

The purpose of this series of articles 

is to remind ourselves that unity 

among the disciples of Christ can still 

be attained and maintained through 

adherence to our common Lord Jesus 

Christ. One must recognize, however, 

that the Lord Jesus’ plan for unity is 

also a plan for division. There is no 

unity between those who adhere to 

the Lordship of Jesus Christ and those 

who reject Him as their Lord – whether 

that rejection focuses on repudiation of 

Jesus’ teaching on what one must do to 

be saved or how men ought to worship 

God. The words of Jesus in Luke 6:46, 

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ 

and do not do the things which I say?” 

focus attention upon what brings and 

keeps one in fellowship with Christ and 

His people – obedience to the teaching 

of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who 

chose to go beyond the teaching of 

Jesus Christ prevent those who follow 

their teaching from entering into 

fellowship with Christ and His people 

and break that fellowship with those 

who are disciples of Jesus Christ when 

they depart from His word. The Lord 

Himself defined who is in and who is out 

of Christian fellowship and shows why 

that occurs – obedience or disobedience 

to the commandments of Christ.

Can we be satisfied with the 

boundaries of fellowship which 

Jesus Himself established?