by Matt Clifton

By far, the most divisive trend currently making rounds among the churches of Christ is the willingness to alter our perception of biblical authority in order to fellowship a larger circle of people. At the root of this movement is the well-intentioned desire to fellowship with more people who we consider Christian brothers. At the end of this movement, however, is more denominationalism and less personal and emotional sacrifice in order to follow the Word of God.

The so-called “unity movement” initiated by some of the more liberal congregations in the churches of Christ, and joined by the Independent Christian Churches, is ironically leading to a greater polarization between the conservative churches of Christ and the more permissive congregations. Far from creating unity, it is instead causing conservative preachers, elders and congregations to “dig in their heels” against the liberals. The end result will likely be more churches of Christ slipping into denominational practices, and perhaps an even more radical conservative wing of the church in response.

At Freed-Hardeman University in Henderson, Tenn., a “contemporary discussion” was recently held on the subject of “What will it take to be together again?” During the course of this discussion, Dr. Ralph Gilmore of the churches of Christ ably defended the a cappella position. Dr. David Faust, president of Cincinnati Christian University, which is associated with the Christian Church, defended the use of the instrument in worship. However, the main point of the discussion, as Dr. Gilmore pointed out, was not instrumental music. The main point was, and still is, how we interpret scripture.

Those who use instruments in worship take a view of the Bible that says, “I can do anything in worship that is not specifically prohibited in scripture.” This is the standard modern denominational view, and it allows drama, story-telling, painting, dancing, etc., in the worship. Those who hold to a cappella music only take the view that God has told us by command, example, or necessary inference what He wants in worship to Himself, and to add something would be dangerous and potentially offensive to God.

After listening to the discussion between Gilmore and Faust, I became excited that the case for the correct view of biblical authority was presented so effectively by Gilmore to those listening. However, my hopes sunk during the question and answer session. One young Freed-Hardeman student stood up and asked the question (in paraphrase), “We believe that grace can cover all of our sins. If using the instrument in worship is a sin, why can’t we believe that grace will cover that sin as well?” In this way, the young man thought, we could have fellowship with the Christian Church. This sort of view, however, would allow all sorts of practices into worship! His attitude is that, for sake of fellowship, we should allow practically any practice among those we fellowship, and trust God to sort it all out. This statement sounds like something that could have come from any member of a denomination.

For this reason I believe that a failure to understand biblical authority is the most divisive trend in the churches of Christ, because it is a problem that is at the heart of the majority of divisive issues. We all want to have as large a fellowship as possible. Let’s face it: we want to fellowship those in Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc., churches. It would make us feel good to be together, and to have no religious gulfs between us and family and friends. The problem is, though, that we cannot draw our circle of fellowship any larger than God has drawn it, or any smaller than He has drawn it.

Every time we allow a teacher, student or young person to go around thinking that “we can do anything that is not specifically prohibited in the Bible,” we do the church an enormous disservice. There are very few congregations being converted to a proper understanding of biblical authority, but there are a great number today in danger of joining the denominational world in an attempt to be happy about the conditions of their neighbors. Such a feeling not only makes people happy, but it also relieves the great burden of evangelizing! But we can rest assured that our “comfort” and “happiness” in a false unity will be felt only in the flesh, and those promoting unity at the high cost of forsaking God’s word will be anything but comfortable with their eternal reward.