Chapter 6
CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE
Any religious group which exists beyond the first generation has certain traditions, because the word tradition means "a handing over, or handing down." A tradition may be either good, bad, or indifferent. Not everything our fathers thought and taught was right, but not all of it was wrong either. It is a fallacy to think that everything old is outmoded. It is as great a fallacy to think that everything new is deserving of praise.
Sometimes traditions develop as to the method of doing things. The sacred scriptures must be implemented. They must be translated into action. The written word must become our flesh. A popular English paraphrase of the scriptures has been called "The Living Bible." Actually, it is no more a living Bible than any other translation, version or paraphrase. The real living Bibles are persons who are reproducing in their daily lives the image of Christ.
The word of God is unchanging. It is recorded in heaven but not necessarily in English. It was recorded there before English was derived and spoken. As men read the word and seek to carry out its implications for their lives they must select and develop means which seem to them best adapted to fulfill the requirements in their time. The means are not the scriptures, and may be altered as circumstances change. However, those who seek to do what God requires may soon confuse the medium with the message and reach the conclusion that to abandon the first is to forsake the second.
As one generation passes away, the succeeding one equates fidelity, not only with trust in God's revelation but with adherence to the methods of the fathers. The tragedy of this is not that men continue to be ruled in what they believe by the living God, but rather that they are governed in how they manifest their faith by men who are dead. The grave has the same power as the glory. There may be nothing unscriptural about the tradition but if the human means no longer accomplish the divine will it is useless to retain them, much less to defend them as the will of God.
Sometimes traditions develop as to the interpretation of certain scriptures. Men in one age, beset by intellectual shortcomings and under constant attack, may search the scriptures for a means of defense of what to them seems God's will for their lives. The constant employment of the meaning they deduce from and assign to a scripture in the heat of debate may become the orthodox explanation, the recognized and official interpretation. Hallowed by usage, the explanation becomes the scripture in the minds of partisan communicants. To question the exposition is to doubt the revelation.
All of this is further complicated by the inborn resistance to change by religious movements which develop ponderous programs and intertwined institutionalism. It makes little difference whether the institutions are church-supported or church-related. They serve as bulwarks against alteration and imprison the movements they profess to liberate. The day an institution accepts a trust fund or creates a foundation it forfeits the freedom to die. It is almost impossible to set a captive movement free when its roots are matted with institutional roots beneath the surface. The legal, political and organizational ties make reformation virtually impossible.
One thing is certain. The cardinal law which governs every religious establishment is self-preservation. The organization is concerned with two things--its image and its perpetuity. To protect itself it erects walls, digs moats and bars gates. Any suggested change is regarded as a threat, any new concept as a challenge. Dissent is treason and the dissenter a heretic. This is the universal stance of the sectarian spirit. Whether or not the sect bears a denomination coined to describe a facet of doctrine or government, or whether it brags of a name found in the scriptures makes no difference. The sectarian spirit is always the same, though "the theology" may differ.
We must recapture a sense of our integrity in the intellectual world. This does not mean setting up a false god of human wisdom or bowing at the shrine of philosophy. It does mean an unrelenting and unceasing quest for truth, and that for truth's sake, regardless of what that truth may do to our cherished positions of the past. The retention of any dross for fear of losing some gold is contrary to the basis of true scholarship and subversive of honesty. We should not hesitate to deposit what we have in the crucible of the present, for that which does not stand the test today was not right yesterday, even though we thought it was. The gold must be tried in the fire, not just in one generation but in every generation.
It is in this spirit of freedom and fearlessness that we are examining again those scriptures which have been twisted to create, condone or continue division. Our thesis is that any use of the written word to defeat the plan, purpose and prayer of the Living Word is an abuse. This calls for a restudy of the bearing and implication of those scriptures. When our application of the word of God produces the very opposite condition of what the word was intended to produce there is something faulty with our application. Thorough study requires time and thought. It cannot be accomplished in a moment and it does not always make for light reading. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a speech delivered in 1938, said: "Freedom to learn is the first necessity of guaranteeing that man himself shall be self-reliant enough to be free."
Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
Of all the scriptures which have suffered from wresting, twisting and distortion, perhaps this one has suffered more maltreatment than most others. Written for the very purpose of protecting and preserving the church from division, it has become one of the chief instruments of such division. Ignoring the greater context in which it is set as a frame of reference, glib partisans apply it without modesty or reservation, to every honest dissenter from their factional programs.
The passage has been cited as grounds for excommunication of individuals whose consciences no longer allow them to kowtow to legalistic decisions or to "toe the party line." Indeed it has been employed to justify attack upon a congregation, or group of congregations, whose constituents had learned that the will of God was not served by the factional spirit, and whose only sin consisted of asserting their freedom in Christ Jesus. It has been a verbal club in the mouths of partisan leaders to try and "hold in line" those who had continued to study and were no longer interested in goose-stepping to a party tune. In the eyes of a sectarian leader anyone who differs with him is guilty of causing divisions and offences. He is acting "contrary to the doctrine which he learned," for the doctrine he learned was the factional interpretation which the leader taught.
What did Paul mean by "the doctrine which you have learned?" Whatever he meant it was something in which the Romans had previously been instructed before the apostle penned this admonition. The expression is in the past tense. Since Paul had never been to Rome it is obvious that "the doctrine" is what he had taught in the previous part of this epistle, if he referred to what they had learned from him. In spite of that, I have heard this passage quoted and the expression "the doctrine which you have learned" applied to every little element of trivia which has disturbed the saints in the twentieth century. Every sect and faction regards its distinctive, peculiar and particular emphasis as "the doctrine you have learned," and those who subscribe to these partisan hangups are urged and exhorted to "mark" those who do not. Indeed, there is not a rallying point for any sect, regardless of how small and insignificant, which has not been exalted to "the doctrine you have learned," even though it has been taught but a decade or less! Certainly the saints in Rome never learned "the doctrine" which is debated in our day and used as a club to batter into submission or into silence those whose thought processes refuse to stop working!
It is almost unbelievable that thinking men and women could ever be led to believe that the apostle Paul would ever condone such a mishmash or hodgepodge as we have created, much less deliberately prepare the group in which we could sow the seeds of strife. Actually, such a position freezes knowledge at the partisan level. It makes ignorance a virtue and further learning a crime. If we are to listen only to those who agree with us in every particular we can never acquire additional knowledge. If we are to mark and avoid all who do not parrot our own particular party line we must continue at our present level of ignorance. Surely the apostle did not have in mind the creedal and dogmatic interpretation of each faction by the expression "the doctrine you have learned." That would perpetuate the very factionalism he wrote to prevent and offset. It would seem that all rational and sensible persons could see such an obvious fact.
The Doctrine Learned
What is "the doctrine you have learned"? What had Paul been teaching the Romans which would cause them to avoid those who were divisive? The entire frame of reference, the context both adjacent and remote, shows it was the teaching that division among brethren is a sin. The doctrine was that no one should cause division. Briefly summed up, the doctrine which the apostle taught and the Corinthians* heard was "Do not cause division or place an occasion of stumbling in a brother's way."
The content of the four preceding chapters is directed toward advocating, exemplifying and enforcing this doctrine. The basis of the teaching is, "Let us therefore follow after things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another" (14:19). Anyone who disregards this doctrine and insists upon making tests of fellowship where God has not made them (i.e., over days, meats, etc.) should be observed and isolated so his factional attitude cannot divide the body into rival camps over such issues.
The argument of Paul related to Jew and Gentile, and the universal need for justification by faith, concludes with the benediction and "Amen" of Romans 11:36. In chapter 12 he begins his dissertation on the conduct becoming the saints, especially as related to unity and oneness. His doctrine is that God's family should not be divided. Its members should not be occasions of stumbling one to another.
Although many members, yet are we one body in Christ, and every one members one of another (12:5).
We are to love each other without hypocrisy (12:9); be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love (12:10); and be of the same mind one toward another (12:16).
We are to owe no man anything except to love one another (13:8), for love is the fulfilling of the law (13:10).
We are not only to deprecate strife and envying, but actually to abhor them, and put on the Lord Jesus Christ, making no provision for the flesh and the exercise of any harmful passion (13:13,14).
There will be differences among the members. Past environment, the present degree of knowledge, various temperaments, and other factors, will enter in to make adjustment difficult. Chapter 14 is an inspired treatise on those attitudes essential to preservation of unity in spite of differences. The foundation of the approach is laid in verse one.
A man who is weak in his faith is to be welcomed. "Without attempting to settle doubtful points" (New English Version). "Not with the idea of arguing over his scruples" (J. B. Phillips). "Not to determinations or reasonings" (Young's Literal Translation). "Not for controversial arguments" (Authentic New Testament). "Not in order to pass judgment on his doubts" (Weymouth). "Not to pass judgment on his scruples" (Moffatt). "Not to criticize their views" (Charles B. Williams). "Do not discuss his opinions" (Charles Kingsley Williams). "Not for the purpose of deciding doubtful points" (Centenary Translation). "Not for the purpose of passing judgment on their scruples" (Twentieth Century Translation). "Not for disputing opinions" (Rotherham).
We are neither to despise nor judge one another (verse 3). We are to allow each to stand or fall to his own master (verse 4), and reach a personal conviction in his own mind (5). We dare not set at nought a brother, for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (10). Each will give account of himself to God (12), so I am not accountable for my brother's conviction, nor am I accountable to my brethren for my own convictions. My brother is not answerable for me, and I am not answerable to my brother. Both of us are answerable to God.
The brotherly relationship must be more important to me than any thing upon which we disagree, and must be more important than all those things which threaten its disruption. Under no condition am I to allow any opinion, scruple or personal conviction to destroy a brother for whom Christ died (15). The kingdom of God is composed of values which transcend all matters of argument over things which disturb its citizenry. It is made up of majestic qualities which are universally accepted within the body--righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit--and to elevate any secondary considerations to an equality with these qualities is neither acceptable nor approved (17,18).
Jesus died for persons and not for their opinions or ideas, right or wrong, and those for whom he died must be more important than anything for which he did not die. It is good to do nothing by which a brother stumbles, or is offended, or made weak (21). A man must not do that about which he has personal qualms or doubts, "because his action does not rise from conviction, and anything which does not rise from conviction is sin" (23).
The strong must accept as their own burden the tender scruples of weaker men and not consider themselves (15:1). Each must consider his own neighbor and think what is for his good and will build up the common life together. We are all to accept one another as Christ has accepted us, to the glory of God (15:7). As God accepted us in our weakness, with mistaken ideas, warped views and unhealthful attitudes, so we must accept each other in the same state or condition. We must not make the kingdom of heaven to consist of our convictions attitudes or opinions, but of citizens who must be tolerant of one another in such matters, otherwise there can be no kingdom of heaven at all. The doctrine the Corinthians learned was not to cause division, but to walk in peace, making allowance for differences.
Factional Persons
After having given this extensive teaching on avoidance of division and offences, the apostle recognizes there will be those who will not heed it. Even God cannot provide a doctrine that is proof against dishonest hearts or unscrupulous motives. There will always be some who refuse to serve Christ, but in their egotism and selfishness will create a factional atmosphere and seduce the minds of innocent people with smooth and specious words. There will always be men who set up their own little kingdoms, who recognize as brethren only those who recognize their opinion, and who will drive out the saints who will not bow the knee to them. What should be done with those who disregard the teaching about preserving peace and insist upon having their own way, regardless of the consequences? The answer is plain and forthright.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
A careful analysis of this passage in purely objective research does not indicate that the apostle is advocating public or corporate action at all. He is not telling a congregation that they should excommunicate certain ones. Those who take such a position have to read into the verse their own ideas. Indeed, the Roman letter differs from other epistles in that it is not addressed to a congregation, but to individual saints, as we have shown in a previous chapter. The "avoiding" here recommended to the brethren is individual. They are simply told to steer clear of those who would create division and to stay out of their way.
The factional spirit is like a flame. It must always have additional fuel or it will eventually flicker out. It is like a cancer. If it cannot reach additional healthy cells or tissue it will subside. It is obvious no one can ever create a faction without followers. If all of the brethren will simply hold at arm's length a smooth talker who advocates pulling away, he cannot harm the body. Factions begin when members start fraternizing and sympathizing with factionalists. It will help us to remember that every factionalist seeks to carve out a body after his own image, and it is easier to carve soap or soft wood. When a factionalist starts wooing you to join a movement to pull away he has chosen you for the same reason that a termite chooses its timber--you are easier to work on! One is complimented when a factionalist passes him by and ignores him. He should examine himself to see what is wrong when he is made the target of a partisan who seeks to manipulate him.
"Mark them which cause division." The word "mark" is from skopeo. This is the form of the word which appears in telescope, microscope, etc. It has to do with vision. It means, "to observe, watch, to keep an eye on." There is not one thing in this word which indicates any action whatsoever upon or against an offender. The action is all upon the part of the observer. It consists simply of keeping another under surveillance.
Divisions is from dichostasia. This is a combined form composed of a word for "apart" and one for "standing." It literally means "standing apart" and here it refers to "alienating one from another." It can be used to designate "divided loyalties" or to describe the condition that occurs when one segment of those who should be together allows a breach to occur which holds them aloof from others. Such a condition is a result and it proceeds from a cause. It is contrary to the will and purpose of God and one who produces the condition disobeys God.
"Offences" is from skandalon, from which we get our English words "scandal" and "scandalized." The original has an interesting history. At first it referred to the trigger of a trap, the part to which the bait is fastened, and which tripped or sprung the snare when the intended victim took the bait. Later it came to apply to the contrivance or instrument as a whole. It is essential to the efficient working or functioning of a snare that it not be recognized for what it is and its real nature be concealed. W. A. Vine said the word is always used metaphorically in the New Testament of that which arouses prejudice, becomes a hindrance to others, or causes them to fall by the way.
"Avoid" is from ekklino which means "to turn away from, to hold aloof from, to stay out of the way." There is nothing in the word which implies any organized action, or formal discipline of the congregation. Indeed, Vine says, "In exhorting them to turn away from false teachers, the Apostle is not speaking of excommunication, but of personal dissociation from the offenders." Albert Barnes puts it this way:
That is, avoid them as teachers; do not follow them. It does not mean that they were to be treated harshly; but that they were to be avoided in their instructions. They were to disregard all that they could say tending to produce alienation and strife; and resolve to cultivate the spirit of peace and union.
The brethren were urged to avoid involvement with the person under consideration by keeping aloof from him or staying out of his way. If there is no congregational action implied in the terms "mark" and "avoid" there is none to be found in this verse at all. Those who abuse and misuse this passage to separate themselves from another congregation of saints over some point of difference are the perpetrators of division. There is a great deal of difference between keeping an eye on a brother who would make a partisan out of you and staying out of his way, and refusing to have anything to do with another congregation whose members sincerely disagree with some partisan interpretation. That is, there is a difference in keeping an eye on an infected member and taking a meat cleaver to the body.
J. B. Phillips translates the passage: "And now I implore you, my brothers, to keep a watchful eye on those who cause troubles and make difficulties among you, in plain opposition to the teaching you have been given, and steer clear of them."
Adam Clarke says: "Let them have no kiss of charity or peace, because they strive to make divisions, and thus set the flock of God at variance among themselves, and from these divisions, offences are produced, and this is contrary to the doctrine of peace, unity and brotherly love which you have learned."
James MacKnight paraphrases thus:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who set up separate assemblies for worship, and who occasion the weak to fall by false doctrine, or by enjoining things indifferent as necessary, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned from me in this epistle, and avoid them.
In explaining the passage, Macknight says: "The apostle had in his eye the Jewish teachers, who in many churches set up separate assemblies for worship of God (see Jude, verse 19), on pretense of greater orthodoxy and sanctity than others, and who would admit none to their communion but such as joined them in their peculiarities, and who represented all others as erroneous and impious."
How Division is Caused
There is no more prolific cause of division than the orthodox interpretation placed on this passage. All who equate "this doctrine" with a partisan interpretation and dogmatically demand conformity to it are destructive of the peace of the one body and are the chief offenders against unity at the very time they quote the passage to exclude or excoriate others. The church of God has suffered indescribable harm from such prejudicial expositors who have split the disciples asunder under guise of loyalty to Jesus, and driven out humble saints by their arrogant and papistical decrees. Eternity alone can reveal the damage done to the body of Christ by the unscriptural and unscrupulous application of Romans 16:17. Sometimes an example is worth a thousand words. Let us consider one way by which such harm is accomplished.
A humble brother in the Lord prayerfully peruses the sacred oracles and in his study becomes convinced that the Son of God will return to the earth prior to the thousand years spoken of in the Apocalypse. He shares his views with the brethren with whom he meets and learns that others as sincere as himself do not reach the same conclusion. They continue to meet together around the common table with mutual respect and regard for one another. Then a preacher comes into the community and learns that the brother has arrived at a premillennial interpretation which seems to him to best explain what the scriptures express concerning the return of the Lord. The preacher visits him with a view to "setting him straight on what the Bible teaches," but finds that the other insists upon being his own interpreter and refuses to abdicate his right to search the scriptures for himself.
The preacher then begins a series of lectures on "The Millennium" in which he has free rein to express his understanding of the subject without opposition. The other brother must merely sit and listen in silence. He cannot appear before the same audience and express his views. After having set forth his interpretation for several months from the pulpit and on his weekly radio program, the preacher informs the congregation that they have learned from him that the premillennial interpretation is not from God, and it is "time to take a stand for the truth."
He gleans occasional statements from individuals who have espoused the premillennial view, lifts them out of context and applies them to all who believe that Jesus will return before the thousand years. When the brother whom he opposes denies certain extremes he declares that all who adopt the premillennial view are cut from the same pattern and tarred with the same brush. He implies that all of these think more of their premillennial view than of anything else and have more in common with "denominational premillennialists" than they do with "the Lord's church." He insists that one cannot be in the latter and disagree with the orthodox position on the millennial reign.
The trap is now set. The trigger is baited for "scandalizing" the body of Christ and destroying a brother for whom Christ died. But how can this brother be "set at nought"? The preacher informs the congregation that "the loyal churches" will cut them off if they "fellowship premillennialists." He declares that if they do not "put away such wicked persons" the time will come when they cannot even get a "faithful preacher" to conduct a funeral service for their dead. He calls for the congregation to "line up with the faithful brotherhood." Then Romans 16:17 is used as the stick with which to throw the trap. "Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them." Now a humble brother whose only sin is that of thinking for himself is hounded out along with those who refuse to bow their knees to despotism, and who regard no one as high priest except Christ Jesus.
Does someone insist that this description is exaggerated? I deny it! The truth is I am describing actual cases of which I have been aware. Who caused the offence, that is, baited the trap? Is it a crime for one to study the word of God for himself? Is it a crime to reach a conclusion from such a study? Is it a crime to retain a conviction until one is personally convinced that he is in error?
Who was at fault when the hierarchy demanded that Galileo, under threat of torture, retract his theory that the earth revolved around the sun? Was the position which obtained at that time--that no person had a right to hold an opinion without consent of the church--a correct one? Is that position correct now? I charge without hesitancy that those who make of the church a mere party to uphold any millennial position as a test of fellowship are the ones who cause division.
A man may be in Christ and know nothing about the millennium. One can be in Christ and be mistaken about the millennium. He can be in Christ and interpret the scriptures from an amillennial or premillennial viewpoint. This does not mean both views are correct. It merely argues that being in Christ Jesus is not contingent upon either view. One is not in Christ because he is right about the millennium, but because he acknowledges Jesus as Lord over his life. It is absurd and asinine for people who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to fall out over how and when he will come again. This is an event over which neither group can exercise control. It will occur in God's time and manner regardless of our ideas about it.
To form parties around our interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy and set at nought our brethren is sinful, scandalous and sensual. It shows we are babes in Christ, that we are yet carnal and walk as men. It reveals we are still partaking of the works of the flesh. We are stupid and short-sighted when we allow men to use us as partisan pawns about such matters and herd us into factional alignments.
My Position
The doctrine I have learned is that division in the family of God is contrary to the will of God. My Father does not want His children shivered into splinter groups or warring tribes. He loves all of His children as I love both of mine. For that reason I positively refuse to allow any man or group to put a party brand upon me which will separate or segregate me from any of my brethren. I shall keep an eye upon those who try to enlist me in their exclusive little segments and avoid them. I will keep out of their way when they try to get me to be a front man for their little cliques and clans.
I belong to Jesus Christ. He bought me with his blood and I do not intend to sell out to anyone else for anything less. No one can make me believe that I can best love God by mistreating His other children. The ones I shall mark and avoid are those who try to get me to mark and avoid all others outside of their little coteries and circles. I know they are factional and divisive. Their very attitude is contrary to all that Jesus came to accomplish.
It is true that I have learned a lot of other things which commend themselves to me as the doctrine of Christ but I do not intend to defend or denounce them. Having learned that doctrine that division is a sin, I shall mark and avoid all who create schisms and offences contrary to this doctrine. No man can be sound and sectarian at the same time. My aim is to save souls and lead men to Christ. It is not to increase or enlarge any party or faction as such. It is enough with me if the Lord adds men to the one body without me trying to entice them into some party or faction. I intend to stand fast in the freedom wherewith Christ set me free. And I shall defend for others the same freedom I demand for myself! I am not for sale!
I am sometimes asked if this will not create some problems for others in their attitude toward me. It will for those who are not free. Any free man in Christ is a problem for those who are factious. Every faction has to corral and brand all others and one who does not wear a party label of any kind presents a serious problem. The problem is not created by my freedom but by their factionalism. Let them become free and the problem will be solved. Let them tear down their corral fences and remove their artificial barriers and keep an eye on those who would build them up again and remain aloof from them and all of us can be happy in Jesus and with each other.
In the past, instead of marking those who are divisive, it was generally those who were divisive who did the marking, accompanying it with such cutting and slashing as rendered the body a spectacle of shame and disgrace to an unbelieving world. It is time to stop this form of insanity which makes us bite and devour the body of which we are a part. Jesus died to make Christians--not cannibals!
The apostle describes the characters to be marked and avoided. "Such creatures are no servants of Christ our Lord, they are slaves of base desires; with their plausible and pious talk they beguile the hearts of unsuspecting people" (verse 18). Have we become so hardened against our brethren for whom Christ died that we regard those who differ with us about some point of trivia as "no servants of Jesus Christ our Lord but slaves of their base desires"? Are we so callous that we will thus brand God's children who honestly disagree with us about some method of propagating the gospel or caring for orphans and other needy? Are we so benumbed in spirit and frigid of heart that we conclude that every brother and sister who expects Jesus to come in advance of the millennium is "no servant of Jesus Christ our Lord"? Are we mere robots of steel, case-hardened and unfeeling, so that we can drive out from our midst every saint who testifies to a life-changing experience with the Holy Spirit?
If these do not fall into such a category as Paul describes, why do we twist and wrest this scripture as applicable to them? Have we been chloroformed by our own orthodoxy and paralyzed by partisan prejudice until we cannot see that to employ this passage to project division makes of us the aggressors and the ones to be marked and avoided? Why do factional promoters quote this verse and apply it to others? Is this the way to add brotherly kindness to godliness and love to brotherly kindness? Is this how we fulfill the admonition to speak not evil one of another? Is this the way to eliminate envying and strife and to overcome confusion and every evil work?
I know not what course others may take, but as for myself I have resolved never again to be brought into serfdom to any man or made the slave of any machine. I shall steadfastly refuse to be made a cat's paw for any clan or a carrier pigeon for any party. I will be answerable to God for my thoughts and actions and will allow no one to control my thinking down here who cannot assume responsibility for it up there. If I must answer for it in heaven I shall reserve the right to do it for myself on earth. I can best face the head of the one body by cherishing and nourishing every other member attached unto him. I can best serve the Shepherd by associating with all of the sheep rather than by foraging with a few of them in the arrogance of isolation from the flock.
I shall value a brother in Christ Jesus more highly than I value what he thinks, knowing that the blood of Jesus makes him priceless even while his thoughts are imperfect. All of the brothers I have are "brothers in error." There are no other kind. Those who think they are not are in the worst error of all. But if they were good enough for God to accept they are not too bad for me to acknowledge. They can be my brothers on the same basis they are His children, and I will not stigmatize them as causing division when they are simply victims of it like the rest of us.
I am moved to conclude this chapter with a lengthy quotation from another source. It is my hope that you will not be deterred from reading it in its completeness despite its extended form. I have drawn it verbatim from The Early Days of Christianity, a volume of over 650 pages, written by Frederic W. Farrar, and published in 1884. In addition to being Chaplain in Ordinary to Queen Victoria, the author was also a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; and Archdeacon and Canon of Westminster. The book was dedicated to Robert Browning, the poet, who was an esteemed friend of the author.
But unity does not exclude diversity--nay, more, without diversity there can be no true and perfect unity. Where there is no unity there is distraction, but where there is no diversity there is death. Where the spirits of the prophets are not subject to the prophets--where every man is conscious only of his own invisible consecration--where, as in the Church of Corinth, every one in his fanatical egotism is anxious to shout down the truths revealed to others, that he may absorb the attention of all by his own "tongue," however barbarous, however dissonant, however unintelligible--where it is ignored that amid the diversities of gifts and ministrations there is yet the translucent energy of one and the same Spirit--there is confusion, and railing, and irreligious strife.
And where, on the other hand, all lips mechanically repeat the same shibboleth for centuries after its significance has been worn away--where the dulness of a self-styled "orthodoxy" has obliterated the many hues of the wisdom of God--where enquiry is crushed under the heel of authority--where, in fact, there can be no independent enquiry because all conclusions are dictated beforehand by the tyranny of an usurped infallibility--there is uniformity indeed, but therewith corruption and decay.
When it is persecution to alter the perspective of a doctrine, and death to leave the cart-rut of a system--when they who question the misinterpretations of Scripture which have been pressed into the service of popular errors must face the anger of startled ignorance--when there is no life left to save the spark which glows in the ashes of the Martyr, or the lamp which flickers in the Reformer's cell--then the caste which has seized the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven may boast indeed of unity, but it is the unity produced by selfishness in the few, and serfdom in the many. The unity so secured is but the stagnancy of the unrippled water, the monotony of the barren sands. It is the unity of the dead plain, "where every molehill is a mountain, and every thistle a forest tree."
In this latter condition there is a deadlier peril than in the former. Even discords can be inwrought into the vast sequences of some mighty harmony, but what great music can be achieved with but a single note? Unbroken unanimity may be the boast of a deadening Buddhism, a withered Confucianism, a mechanical Islam; it cannot exist in a free and living Christianity. If it exists at all, it can only be as a uniformity of indifference and ignorance--a uniformity of winter and of night. The uniformity of the noonday is only for the Infinite. For finite beings, if there be any light at all, there must be the colors of the sunset, and the sevenfold luster of the rainbow, which is only seen when there is rain as well as sun.