“Is Christ Divided?”

“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3

A SHORT time before he relinquished his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the established Church of England, Dr. Fisher paid a visit to the late Pope John. In a statement issued at the time by the Church of England Information Office, the visit was referred to in the following terms: “It was never intended that this should be an occasion for the consideration of particular problems or issues, and the meeting retained throughout the character of a visit of courtesy. It was marked by a happy spirit of cordiality and sympathy such as befitted a notable event in the history of Church relations.”

There can be little doubt that many thousands of Christian people in all parts of the world watched these proceedings with very great interest and genuine hope. It seemed that here at last was promise of a “break-through” in relationship between two great divisions of Christian thought and practice. Would it be a decisive step towards Christian unity about which so much has been heard and so little apparently achieved in the past few decades?

Several years have passed since this historic meeting, and little has emerged to suggest that the chasm between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches is any nearer to being bridged now than was the case in Luther’s day. Whatever hopes may have been stimulated in more optimistic quarters by the recent meeting of Pope and Prelate must have received a rude setback by a pastoral letter issued by Dr. Heenan, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, England, who warned Catholics not to be misled in matters of doctrine. The archbishop said, “No doctrine of the Catholic Church can ever be changed. Let me tell you plainly,” he writes, “that the Church has no power to alter the law of God. What is wrong and immoral can never become right. Nor can any doctrine of the Catholic Church ever be changed.”

Various interpretations may be put upon some parts of this extraordinary statement, but there can be no shadow of doubt as to its primary meaning. Dr. Heenan is stating unequivocally, and presumably authoritatively, that whatever approach may be made to the question of Christian unity, the Church of Rome is prepared to co-operate only on its own terms with the issue prejudged from the outset in its own favor.

Within the closer circle of English Church relationships, the same problem of doctrinal inviolability separates the Mother Church from the various nonconformist sects which go to make up the recognized religious structure of the country. For a number of years talks have been in progress between the Church of England and the powerful Methodist Church with the object of finding a basis of co-operation, even though complete doctrinal unity may not be possible. A report on the progress of the discussions is now overdue, and the talks have been extended in an endeavor to surmount obstacles which have so far made agreement impossible. Yet these are communities of professing Christian people, theoretically united in Christ, but realistically divided by church dogma and unchristian obstinacy.

Unity or Union

Dr. Fisher urged greater unity between Protestants and Catholics when he visited Rome, and pointed out that he used the word “unity”—not “union”—deliberately. By this he apparently meant co-operation between differing elements of Christian thought without loss of identity and doctrinal authority.

Is this what our Lord meant when he prayed on behalf of his followers, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”? Is this what the Apostle Paul meant when, in writing to the Ephesian church (Eph. 4:4,5) he said, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”? Does the Bible really teach a loose and argumentative faith dependent upon the claims of the clergy rather than the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit? If it did, we should be upon a very insecure foundation indeed.

What Constitutes the Church?

It is well to remember that all these divisions of Christianity into sects, creeds, and denominational segments have taken place since the first century, when the early Christian churches, or groups of disciples, gathered together copies of New Testament manuscripts and used them as a basis for their study and fellowship. As time went on and adherents to the Christian faith grew in numbers, leaders arose, establishing their own standards of belief and rules of worship, until the great system of Papacy was established and firmly seated in the saddle as the “true church” by so-called apostolic succession. This continued until the Great Reformation movement brought into being a protesting element which defied the authority of the Mother Church and continued the breaking-up process into a condition of even greater confusion than that which existed before.

Throughout the centuries, almost submerged and continually persecuted by these false systems of religion, the true church has existed in the form of small communities of faithful believers who searched out and studied the evidence provided in the teachings of our Lord and his apostles, seeking with earnest patience and prayer to know the truth which, in the words of the Master himself, would make them free. These dear souls knew full well that the trend of Christian thinking at that time was toward bondage and not freedom. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they were able to discern the shape of things to come; they saw the shadow of Antichrist project itself subtly but unmistakably upon the image of church worship, and they rightly rejected it.

Here was the true church, and in this same humble form the true church exists today. The earnest Christian, endeavoring to follow in the footsteps of his Lord and Master, does not find true fellowship in the ornate practices of priestcraft, be it Catholic or Protestant. Beauty of architecture and magnificence of priestly attire are not, to him, prerequisites to Christian worship. To such a one the beauty of a simple faith, unfettered freedom, is wonderfully expressed in the words of Whittier’s lovely hymn:

“In simple trust like theirs who heard,
Beside the Syrian sea,
The gracious calling of the Lord,
Let us like them, without a word,
Rise up and follow Thee.”

The Unity of the Spirit

The individual calling of those who are to be members of the body of Christ is stressed time and again in Scripture. Nowhere are we taught to regard any church system, however prominent, as a means of entry into the great high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Paul speaks of this calling as of, and from God, who, he says, has saved us and called us with “an holy calling.” (II Tim. 1:9) “There is one body, and one Spirit,” says the apostle, “even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” (Eph. 4:4) There was certainly no thought in Paul’s mind of qualification for this high calling by means of church membership. There is really no such thing as collective responsibility before God as applied to church membership. No sprinkling at a church font can induct a child into the body of Christ, neither can water immersion at a later age, unless it be accompanied by a condition of heart consecration known and understood in its truest sense only by the individual concerned and by our Heavenly Father, to whom the consecration is made. “They [each one of them] shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels [margin, or, special treasure]; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.”—Mal. 3:17

Notice how Paul stresses this individual responsibility to and relationship with God in his own experience. Writing to the Philippian church in chapter 3 of Philippians, he says, “This one thing I do, … I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 3:13,14) This pressing toward the mark is surely Paul’s individual responsibility, and his alone, in relationship with God. But he then proceeds to associate himself with his brethren when he continues, “Therefore let all of us who are mature believers cherish these thoughts; and if in any respect you think differently, that also God will make clear to you. But whatever be the point that we have already reached, let us persevere in the same course.”—Phil. 3:15,16 Weymouth

This seems clearly to imply that the apostle was prepared to concede to his brethren the right to use their own judgment in respect of their individual responsibilities before God. He felt sure that those who had already attained to maturity of Christian character would agree with his singleness of purpose, but he recognized that there were some among them who could not at that stage accept all the implications of his teaching and example. He did not cut them off from fellowship; he did not discourage or even criticize them. He was content to leave the matter in God’s hands, knowing full well that in his own time and way the Lord would bring these immature ones to a full appreciation of their privileges as brethren in Christ. In this attitude of Christian love and tolerance the great apostle consistently endeavored “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”—Eph. 4:3

The Psalm of Unity

A beautiful picture of the unity of the Spirit in the church, the body of Christ, is given to us in Psalm 133. “How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity,” says the psalmist. And then he points to the consecration of the priesthood as a figure of this unity among brethren. As the holy anointing oil was poured upon the head of the high priest and ran down to the skirts of his garments, so there is an anointing of the Head in respect of God’s people, which runs down and sanctifies all those who constitute the members of his body. This is the true unity which binds together those who have consecrated their all, and are seeking to follow in the footsteps of their Lord and Head, the great antitypical High Priest, “who,” Paul writes, “needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”—Heb. 7:27

This is the unity for which all God’s people must strive, unity under the headship of the One who, through his own precious blood, has opened the way for the members of his body, the true church class, to worship and to fellowship, and to sacrifice together, until finally “we all come in [margin, or, into] the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature [margin, or, age] of the fullness of Christ.”—Eph. 4:13

This is no unification of a collection of sectarian shibboleths, no hanging together by expedients of common worship in order to present a united front to the forces of evil. Christ is not divided! The true church, members of his body and fellow-heirs with him in the riches of the glory of his inheritance, are one in heart with their Lord, even as he is one with the Father. They must, among themselves, keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace—walking and talking and working together under the guidance and direction of their Head, in order that the Father’s name may be glorified now as it was glorified by him during his earthly life.

That these can attain to perfection of unity, either in Spirit or in doctrine, under present imperfect conditions, is not possible; but the true child of God will seek continually to pursue that spirit of tolerance and patience toward all which finds expression, not in rival claims of religious factions, but in simplicity of faith and humility of heart, following “peace with all men, and holiness [R.V., the sanctification] without which no man shall see the Lord.”—Heb. 12:14

| Home Page | Table of Contents |