3.11 - UNITY (No. 1)

UNITY (No. 1) My friends and brethren, I am sure that in our hearts there is profound gratitude to God for the wonderful opportunities of this hour. It is encouraging to find this great throng of people assembled. You have come, not for mere pleasure or entertainment, but with a degree of soberness and seriousness characteristic of those who are conscious of the fact that they are rapidly passing to the other shore.

I read to you from John 17:20-23. This is a part of the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ the night He stood in the very shadow of the cross.

Having lifted His voice in petition to the Father, first for Himself, next, in behalf of the apostles, He then turns and incorporates others. So He says: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gayest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and has loved them, as thou hast loved me." The paramount idea of the great Restoration Movement of which I spoke last night was the oneness and the unity of the people of the Lord. That which troubled great and good men was the divided condition among those who claimed to be followers of the Lord.

It is rather popular now for the world to talk about union. There was never a time in the history of the world when genuine unity was more in demand and more earnestly sought by real godly men than at this present hour. In the most subtle manner known to humanity the very foundation of the Church of Christ is being attacked by the combined efforts of every school of skepticism known to mortal man. All of our fondest hopes and holiest desires are threatened by the ever-increasing tide of opposition to things formerly considered sacred, holy and inspired of God.

There is, therefore, a call that comes to every lover of Bible truth to take notice of whither we are drifting, and what the responsibility resting upon us is. When I talk to you about Christian unity, right on its face division is implied. That very announcement suggests that there are Christians on the earth whose efforts are not together blended. The Saviour said, in Matthew 12:50, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

I have never been so egotistic as to say that my brethren with whom I commune on the first day of the week are the only Christians on this earth. I never said that in my life. I do make the claim that we are Christians only. But there is a vast difference between that expression and the one formerly made. But you ask what my objective is. Exactly that which prompted and moved those of a century ago. I am trying to get all of God’s people everywhere to stand together as a solid phalanx against the opposing forces now seeking to destroy the church of our Lord. I know that the cause of Christ needs its full strength. I know that in unity alone strength can exist, and I think it a calamity for those who claim to believe the Bible, to reverence Jehovah, and to wear the name of Christ at all, to stand thus divided, and thereby invite the enemy to a victory over our scattered forces.

There are many blinded and deluded people who, perhaps, really think that a divided state of religious affairs is advantageous to the cause of Christ, and that it meets with heaven’s favor. As I now recall, I have never heard but one passage of Scripture cited in justification of such a claim. Sometimes thoughtless partisans, and preachers who glory in their sects and human denominations, try to obtain comfort out of the reading of John 15:1-27, where Christ said, "I am the true vine, my father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit."

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

"I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." In all effort to gain some comfort, as aforesaid, this has been repeated in justification of the great number of denominations on the earth. They are styled branch churches, and in them, folks abide.

Friends, that is a ridiculous conclusion. First, Christ was talking, not to human denominations at all, but to His immediate disciples. To them He said, "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." Ye who? Peter, James, John, Thomas, Philip, Nathaniel, Bartholomew, and other individual disciples of the Lord.

Hence I know that He did not have in mind organizations of which I have had occasion to speak during the past few nights.

Second, at that time there was no such thing on this earth as a denomination like unto those with which we are surrounded today. In the third place, there has never yet been a vine producing different branches, from which one may gather different kinds of fruit. If, on one branch, clinging to the vine, you pick a tomato, every other fruit on that same vine will likewise be a tomato. It won’t be even a different kind of tomato. They are all the same kind. From such premises the conclusion follows that the man who seeks to justify religious division by the wonderful lesson taught in that connection is grabbing at a straw. So I raise another question: is religious division wrong?

I think the answer comes from every thoughtful man that surely it is.

Friends, that division is wrong is evidenced by things quite familiar to us, and visible on every hand.

There are homes in the city of Nashville, this afternoon, wherein Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned, nor his word read, nor his cause discussed. Why? Because of division in that home. The father is a member of one organization, the mother is a member of another. Each of them is jealous, envious, and anxious to build up his own denomination, and the result is, they dare not mention the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

I have been invited into homes, either by the husband or the wife, and before I made my entrance there was this warning: "Now, Brother Hardeman, we are glad to have you in our home, but you understand that it won’t be in order to discuss religion at all." Of course, I understand that the devil reigns triumphant in many such homes, and that Jesus Christ is a total stranger. His name cannot be mentioned without the bitterest kind of feeling and animosity on the part of those thus bound together in sacred marriage ties.

I know again that there are sons and daughters in the homes of many who are not members of any religious body at all. Stop and ask why? That respectful son knows that if he were to join Dad’s church, Mother would feel bad about it, and would think he did not love her as he should. Hence he will not go with his father. On the other hand, if he went and became a member of Mother’s church, Father would feel the same way as formerly pictured of her. Therefore, in order to remain neutral, and to show equal respect for both Father and Mother, he refrains from union with either of those wherein they have their membership. What the ultimate results? That son becomes hardened, grows wayward, drifts upon the bosom of the popular, current, and lands at last in hell. Why? Because of the fact that he was reared in a home where religious division prevailed, where the Bible lay unread, and the name of Christ unmentioned.

There was never a more sacred responsibility resting upon parents than that they do all within their power to blend together in perfect unity, and to make Christ the unseen guest in their home perpetually, and the word of God a matter of public and of private conversation within their realms.

I have seen neighborhoods and communities unable to make progress, unable to get together in things material, and to push forward many things for their own benefit. Why? Because of religious division.

I have known of schools that have been absolutely ruined, and educational possibilities for the children blighted because of religious prejudice, division, and partisan spirit.

I have seen small towns unable to make any progress. Whatever one side favors, the other says, "O. that is a regular Methodist trick, and we Baptists and Presbyterians are against that." And, vice versa: "The Baptists are trying to run everything in this town, and the rest of us are going to see to it that they do no such thing." What is the result? The wheels of progress are locked and a forward march is impossible.

Friends, it is positively wrong from every point of consideration, both human and Divine, for a people claiming to march under the same flag of Christ, to be torn into parties and different organizations. But let me say to you that there is a difference between the words, union and unity.

I am pleading, not for Union, but for Unity. If you will allow technicalities to be mentioned, I shall suggest to you, as best I can, what I conceive to be the difference between these terms. A unity is the blending together of particles which are identical, and of the very same kind. To illustrate: Were ~ to break the bone in that arm, and thus sever it into two parts, I would expect this bone, plus that one, to be knit together. That would be unity elements of the same kind blending together in ~ cohesive manner, and thus forming one out of the same material, and identical in nature. That is what we call homogeneous Unity or oneness. But again: Sometimes, in all operation, we are told by the physician that the skin attaches to some other organ, and hence we have adhesion. What does that mean? The blending together of elements of different kinds. Such is a heterogeneous union. I can possibly make that clearer to you by all illustration. When our American boys, during the World War, were marshaled on the field of battle under the leadership of General Pershing, there was unity, but when the allied forces were brought together, and placed under General Foch, there was union. It was the coming together of the different nations, each with its respective constitution, idea and characteristic. For a common objective they blended together temporarily. There never was a unity of the allied forces during the whole war.

Now, what we want in this country, that thing which bids defiance to all kinds of skepticism, is not simply all amalgamation of the type last mentioned, but we want the forces of God to be one in the sense of a coherent unity of the homogeneous type. But again: This meeting, being fostered by about forty different congregations, is a unity meeting. There is not a congregation having any part in it that differs in origin, doctrine or practice from any other one in it. That is unity and co-operation.

Kindly allow me, for the sake of the illustration, to refer to a meeting recently held here, conducted by the world-renowned preacher, Gipsy Smith. I don’t know just how many were blended into that, but let me say, as a matter of fact, that meeting was not a unity. It was a anion for only a brief time. There was no common flag or constitution, no common set of by-laws, rules and regulations governing the different denominations entering into it. For the time being they were together; but just as soon as that meeting was over, the union broke up and each one went back to his own denominational pen. Some of them had their feelings hurt, because they thought they had been used for their moral and financial support, and then insulted at the very last hour.

Friends, union is not the thing for which Christ prayed. As a band of Christians, we do not need that which simply superficially combines our efforts, but we need that which will make us all speak the same thing and be of the same mind and judgment. We want to be one in origin, doctrine, and practice. The ideal of the late President Woodrow Wilson, wherein all the nations of earth would blend together, would have been a union. Not until all people accept just one flag, and one constitution, will there ever be unity among the nations of this earth.

I submit to you two fundamental propositions. I mention the first this afternoon, and it is this: God Almighty demands unity. If I meet with His approval I must do all within my power to bring about that for which Jesus prayed and the apostles so earnestly pleaded.

I call your attention, first, to the Scripture read at the opening, John 17:20-22. This is in reality the prayer of our Lord. It is the last prayer that He prayed as he neared the tragedy outside the city’s walls. He humbled himself, lifted his face toward the throne of his Father, and prayed that the glory which the Father had might be his to share. He prayed that he might have the strength and the courage to withstand all that confronted him. The second division of that prayer was in behalf of those who had followed him, and upon whom, as his chosen representatives, the salvation of the world depended.

He next turned to the great mass of suffering humanity and prayed after this fashion: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."

Faith comes by hearing God’s Word, and if we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as a result of that testimony announced by his representatives, we are included in this wonderful prayer.

Read the sentiment: "I neither pray for these alone, but for all them who shall believe in me through their word."

First, "That they all may be one."

Second, "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee."

Third, "That they all may be one in us."

Fourth, "That the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

There are four points emphasized in that brief statement. "I pray that they may be one in that same sense as thou art in me and I in thee. One in sentiment, one in purpose, one in spirit, one in action" Well, why?

Jesus Christ recognized that the most fruitful field of infidelity on this earth was division among his professed followers. He knew that the devil could wield that club more effectively than any other one possible. Therefore, to leave him without a weapon, and to rob the enemy of his gigantic power, he said, "Father, I want them to be one, that the world may know that thou has sent me."

Friends, right here in the city of Nashville, there is rank infidelity in some of your great schools. I regret to say that in them there is modernism, atheism, Darwinism. The Bible is ridiculed and reduced to a common level with uninspired books by many in our schools and by some in the pulpits.

What would be the greatest possible means on the part of the professed Christians of walking triumphantly over such opposition? Surely it would not be for them to divide into a thousand factions, but for them to see to it that nothing is preached or practiced which is unauthorized by the word of God.

Each religious body should earnestly ask, "Have we got something connected with our system of church government or our method of worship unknown to the Bible? If so, we cannot expect the possibility of unity on that which is foreign to God’s word." But again: Jesus said, in John 10:16: "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd"

Let me ask, how is it 1,900 years this side of the Christ’s declaration? Instead of there being one fold in America, there are about 200. Instead of there being one shepherd, at whose beck and call alone they respond, there is a multiplicity of just such. Are you respectful of the prayer of the Christ? Are you seeking to cooperate in bringing about its answer? Is it the very leading idea of your being for there to be one flock and one fold, under the leadership of but one head?

If so, you have the spirit of Christ. Otherwise, you are none of his. But that is not all. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, there are these significant words: "The cup of the blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Hear it—"For we, being many, are one bread, and one body."

Friends, that is the sentiment of God’s Book. As long as professed Christians are divided into denominations, what can be said to the infidel, who will charge openly and above board that they do not believe the Bible themselves? What answer can be made? But again, in 1 Corinthians 12:12, there is this sentiment: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ."

Romans 12:4-5 : "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." My friends, division is wrong. I care not what else it may be. You may sometimes ease the situation and pacify your own conscience by saying, "Oh, our division is over a minor affair."

We sometimes get so big, broad-gauged and liberal that we ridicule all divisions of a minor type.

Let me say to you, friends, there is not one solitary division which curses the city of Nashville, but is as big as that which was condemned, in no uncertain way, by the peerless apostle to the Gentile world.

Let me read to you 1 Corinthians 1:10 : "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." That is Paul’s pleading. May I cooperate with him in all effort to bring it about? When I kneel down to approach the throne of grace, am I so irreverent of His word as to thank God for so many divisions that every man can have a church to suit his choice? Will you fancy, just a moment, a modern preacher on this side of the stand, in all candor and fervor lifting his voice, and thanking God for the multiplicity of churches on this earth?

Picture in contrast the Son of God in the shadow of the cross, as he also lifted up his voice and said, "Father, I pray that they all may be one." I want to know with which of these sentiments we are spending our efforts, and putting forth our powers at this time? And Paul said to the Corinthians: "It hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

What was the trouble down at Corinth? There was division among them. Over what? Over their ideal of a preacher. One said, "I am after Paul, I am a Paulite; thank God for it." Another said, "I am all Apollosite, and I rejoice in his name." Another said, "Well, I am after Peter, I am a Cephasite." And still a fourth class said, "We are after Christ."

Friends, can you fancy such a condition among professed Christians in the city of Corinth, where there were 400,000 people at that time?

Here are the professed followers of the Lord divided into four parties. "Who is that crowd over yonder?" "They are Paulites." "Well, who are those over here?" "They are Apollosites." "And who are these?" "They are Cephasites." "And who are you?" "We are Christites or Christians" Such was the condition, and the things over which they were divided I want you to hear Paul’s reply.

"Is Christ divided?" You know the answer is, No. Then the implication is, "Why are ye?" Again, "Was Paul crucified for you?" Of course not. Then why be a Paulite? Again, "Were you baptized in the name of Paul, or Peter, or Apollos?" Certainly not. Then Paul raises the point and drives home the argument: "Why do you want to wear the name of Paul? He didn’t die for you. You were not baptized in his name. It is wrong to be a Paulite."

Then to the others: "Was Apollos crucified for you?" "No." "Were you baptized in the name of Apollos?" "No, no." "Then, my friend and brother, why wear the name of Apollos?" And thus the argument continues. I certainly do not have to stop long in making the application to present-day affairs. Friends, it is not because I dishonor any great man of earth that I refuse to wear his name or become a partisan after his order, but because the teaching of God’s book positively prohibits it. Was Martin Luther crucified for you? The answer, "No." Then why be a Lutheran? That is Paul’s argument. Were you baptized in the name of John Calvin? No. Then why be a Calvinist? Did John Wesley die for you? No. Then why wear the name which refers to him?

Friends, I assert in the presence of God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom, it is wrong for men to wear human names, to be divided into human parties and thus to weaken the forces of professed Christianity. All such gives the devil the advantage in the march to victory. But again, 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, let me read: "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

Well, why, Paul?

"For you are yet carnal." The word "carnal" means fleshly, physical the opposite of spiritual. Why, Paul, are they carnal? How do you know it? What is the outstanding evidence? Hear it: "For whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one of you saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"

Brethren, the spirit of God does not dwell in people thus divided, and so forgetful as to wear human names. I never said that. But Paul, the peerless apostle, did, and it is applicable to the city of Nashville and to every place where people are divided into organizations for which there is not one syllable of authority in all the Book of God When you profess to raise aloft God’s banner, and, at the same time, wear some human name, Paul says you are carnal, fleshly, and walk as men.

If such remarks, coming direct from the Book of God, do not make us feel the fearful responsibility for the divided state of religious matters, I think, speaking reverently, that God Almighty could not make such all impression upon mortal man.

Therefore, regardless of what may be said later by way of the possibility of bringing about such a happy, glorious and delightful state, I conclude by pledging to you right now 100 per cent of my being to try to bring about that unity demanded in Holy Writ. I would be inexpressibly glad to see all answer to that prayer of the Son of God, to the earnest pleading of the Apostle Paul, and to the general sentiment that runs throughout the entire Bible.

Therefore, I maintain that the Bible alone is the only possible standard; that the name of Christ Jesus, our Lord, is the only name; and that the organization about which the Bible has so much to say is the only organization wherein such a unity is possible. Let us walk by faith, not by sight. Let us walk by the Word of God which will guide us in the same path, bring together scattered and diversified forces, and unify every man and woman on this earth who loves the Lord, and who delights in the promulgation of His cause.

It is to just such a principle and platform that you have been invited. Again we are going to stand together, and join in the singing of the song selected. While we sing it, won’t you who are thus disposed come forward, extend to some brother your hand and make known to him your will and wish? My friends, we plead with you to accept the Lord Jesus Christ; to wear his name and to be guided by his word forevermore.