Unity-In-Diversity: Peas in a Pod of Compromise
by Harry Osborne
Last week, we dealt with the truth taught in the context of Romans 14. In recent years, some
brethren have affirmed that text provides for brethren to preach some doctrinal errors and practice
some sins while continuing in the fellowship of faithful brethren on an on-going basis. Advocates
of this theory have specified several areas of sin and doctrinal error to be tolerated under the
umbrella of Romans 14. The first application was a plea for receiving teachers of error on divorce
and remarriage. The next application was to teachers of error regarding some moral issues. It has
been used to justify on-going fellowship with those engaged in immodest dress, moderate
recreational use of alcohol, modern dancing, gambling in the state lottery and other areas of moral
looseness. The plea for tolerance in our fellowship has even been extended to receiving those
teaching that the physical universe is the result of uniformitarian change over billions of years
following the "Big Bang." The growing tolerance of error and sin has intensified current
differences over the bounds of lawful fellowship. Among brethren justifying the acceptance of
those teaching or practicing error, Romans 14 has been the passage claimed to sustain their
attempts. With each passing year, it becomes clearer that this controversy is merely a revival of
the "grace-unity" errors of the 70's dressed in new clothes.
In the 70's, the "grace-unity movement" urged greater "tolerance" among brethren for different
doctrinal teachings. They termed it "unity-in-diversity." Leaders of the movement began by saying
it was impossible for our differences with those in institutionalism and the Christian Church to be
resolved by doctrinal agreement. They asserted that many of our differences were matters which
were "not clear" or "not central" to the gospel. They then claimed a distinction between matters
they called gospel (central or core matters of truth) and doctrine (peripheral or non-essential
matters to truth). They said differences in doctrine could be "tolerated," but differences in gospel
could not. They taught that brethren should accept those in sins of "ignorance" or "weakness"
since they were "continually cleansed" from such sins even as they sinned. As years passed, those
who apostatized in this error gradually received one error after another until they accepted the
denominations.
Many of those now defending a broader fellowship through the appeal to Romans 14 were
involved in fighting the errors of the "grace-unity movement." This fact is especially puzzling to
me. How could they see the error of one and not see the error of the other? Consider for a few
moments the parallel between the two errors.
Receiving Sin and Error
Both errors are mechanisms for receiving those with admittedly sinful practices and false
teachings into our fellowship on an on-going, continual basis. The "grace-unity movement"
followers said that "continuous cleansing" resulted in the automatic forgiveness of the sinful
practice or teaching, thus taking away the obstacle to an on-going fellowship. Those proclaiming
the current approach to Romans 14 justify our fellowship with the sinner by defining the problem
away. They say the person involved in certain sinful practices and doctrinal errors is still guilty of
sin and lost in God's eyes, but must be accepted by us. They have matters of faith that matter (no
pun intended) regarding our fellowship and matters of faith that do not matter regarding our
fellowship. Some, they say, are "no big deal." The criteria by which they distinguish "big deal" sin
and error from "no big deal" sin and error is not stated. In essence, it is the "gospel-doctrine
distinction" using different terminology.
Appeal to Emotion
Both views have vilified brethren standing for truth and accused them of seeking endless division.
The examples of such appeals made by those in the "grace-unity movement" could be cited ad
infinitum and ad nauseam. Similar pleas by the new thinkers on Romans 14 are becoming equally
apparent. In the November 1988 issue of Christianity Magazine, brother Ed Harrell gave a 3 page
emotional appeal in an article pleading for brethren to continue accepting brother Homer Hailey in
spite of his erroneous teaching on divorce and remarriage. Those opposing brother Hailey's
teaching were falsely charged with "personal attacks" and "an unheroic attacks on an 85-year-old
warrior" (p. 6). Brethren standing opposed to the error taught were accused of attacking an
admired and greatly loved older preacher. It would be hard to imagine a more emotional appeal to
negatively characterize the actions and motives of those who were simply "speaking as the oracles
of God" (1 Pet. 4:11).
Other examples of emotional pleas have followed. In a widely heard sermon, brother Bob Owen
chided opponents to his brand of unity-in-diversity. He jabs at those denying his broadened
application of Romans 14 saying they need not build new church buildings because they will be so
small they can meet "in a phone booth."
Scripture: Clear or "Nebulous"?
Both false concepts affirm that some matters of revealed faith are so unclear in the Bible that it is
impossible to agree on the truth taught. The "grace-unity movement" divided the so-called
"clear," "core" teachings into the gospel category leaving the doctrine category for the "unclear"
teachings. In the present controversy, only the names of the categories are different - the concept
remains identical. Ed Harrell's sixteen article series, "The Bounds of Christian Unity," repeatedly
asserted that "clarity" was lacking in some biblical teachings which made it impossible for us to
agree on those subjects (see Christianity Magazine, Feb. 89 - May 90). Some other brethren
agreeing with this idea say that some "matters of faith" are "nebulous" as taught in Scripture.
Without intending any malice towards these brethren, they have in essence blamed God for our
differences by charging Him with vague teaching which makes impossible our obedience to His
command requiring understanding of His will (Eph. 5:17). Such a charge at least borders on
blasphemy!
Demands of Consistency
In the end, both views will have to accept the other. The comments from some of the "continuous
cleansing" advocates make it clear that they accept the current approach to Romans 14 taken by
the aforementioned brethren. Several of the "continuous cleansing" advocates are able men of
conscience who have been respected among brethren for many years. Many of them apply their
view only in individual matters, not matters which affect the collective. The new thinkers on
Romans 14 have said they will extend fellowship to conscientious men who have demonstrated
great ability in the past as long as they apply their error only in individual matters. Would not
consistency demand that able and conscientious advocates of "continuous cleansing" be accepted?
It would be useless for them to fight the error of "continuous cleansing" on the one hand only to
turn around and accept it with the other. In fact, if these brethren are right on Romans 14, they
are forbidden from even disputing with them (Rom. 14:1). How tragic for men who once opposed
error to receive it!
Influence of Evil
Both errors open the door for the influence of admittedly sinful practices and false doctrines on
Christians' lives. Whatever the justification for the on-going fellowship of those preaching or
practicing error, the effect upon brethren will be the same. The current appeal to receive the ones
teaching and practicing error regarding divorce and remarriage is an excellent example.
Both views justify acceptance of those teaching current errors. Both views are used by many to
justify acceptance of those practicing the errors as well. Consistency will force those believing
both views to "receive" the teaching and the practice. The acceptance of one in his practice is
the whole point of Romans 14. If we should accept some in a sinful practice, why not accept the
put-away fornicator who has remarried? If we must receive the one teaching the right of a guilty
party to remarry, it follows that we must receive the one who practices that learned from the
teacher. The effect of such a conclusion negates Paul's admonition of 1 Corinthians 5. The leaven
is at work when such is applied. It will cause an increasing number of people in unlawful
marriages within the church. It will inevitably lead to greater acceptance of and participation in
unlawful divorce and remarriage. The compromise with such an evil will devastate families
wherever it is accepted and applied!
I warned a dear friend about the effect of the "continuous cleansing" doctrine several years ago.
Sadly, he now exemplifies the downward path of error (2 Tim. 3:13). The current approach to
Romans 14 will bear the same fruit. Churches receiving those in error and immorality by this
means are paving the way for other immoral action in years to come. Some day, those engaged in
homosexuality will be received on the same basis. Advocates of the current compromise say,
"No!" but time will tell.
Conclusion
Brethren, the battle against the "grace-unity movement" was waged because faithful brethren
understood its advocates assaulted the basis of God's truth. When brethren were slow to react to
the error, the price in souls lost became dreadfully high. When I think about the close friends I lost
in that apostasy, the reality of that enormous price is all too clear. They were not just my friends,
they were fellow-heirs of a heavenly promise, now on a road headed towards eternal
condemnation. How many souls will be lost in this new compromise with error before brethren
see its true nature? We must stand now, for the price of delay is too high!