MODERN IDEAS OF UNITY by M. C. Wilcox

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 12, 1890

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 16, No. 18.

MODERN IDEAS OF UNITY.

By M. C. Wilcox

"UNITY in diversity" is the order of the day among the various Christian denominations. Missionary societies, religious societies, and unions all express this same sentiment. As an indication of this drift take the meeting of the Congregational Club, and the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Social Unions of New York, which was held Monday evening, March 24, 1890, at the Lenox Lyceum, as reported in the New York Observer, of March 27. Bishop Andrews, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, claimed all "Christian churches as his possession," but thought there "was a fitness in the existence of the denominations. They were important as producing mutual respect, personal self-respect, and in their relation to the common labors of the churches." Just as though there was not enough in the union which Christ prayed for to develop "mutual respect and self-respect"! A "bright address" is said to have been made by Rev. Dr. R. S. McArthur, of the Calvary Baptist Church.

"He said he was not a believer in an organic union, but was in favor of a federation. This he would form on such principles as these: First, the word of God must be the only rule of faith and practice. Then, that no denomination should have a right to exist as a separate organization, except it represented a distinct truth to the world which no other body did. Third, that the denominations should first unify themselves, so that there should not be such wide differences as now exist under one name. And last, the rights of all should be duly considered."

A strange kind of union that would be! If a religious denomination had no right to exist as a separate organization except as it represented a distinct truth to the world which no other body did, and this fact must be recognized by all other bodies in the federation, then every other body to be consistent ought to accept of that truth, or admit frankly that they are not honest to their convictions. For instance: If Episcopalians and Baptists and Congregationalists should unite, the Episcopalians would represent the apostolic succession; the Congregationalists, independent church government; the Baptists, immersion on profession of faith. The Baptists and Congregationalists would recognize the apostolic succession as a distinct truth represented only by the Episcopalians, and they therefore ought to accept it, or place themselves on record as denying in practice what they hold in theory. Such Christianity could hardly be called honest. The same would be true of Episcopalians and Congregationalists as regards believers' baptism. If they recognized it as truth, to be consistent they should adopt it. But it is to just such inconsistencies as these that modern ideas of unity lead. The Bible idea is: "That they may be one, even as We [Christ and God] are one" (John 17:22); "That ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).

M. C. W.