The New Testament Church
Is Divine In Unity

True unity is an identifying mark of the New Testament church (John 17:20-23). Divine unity results from agreement on and practice of the Gospel alone as the final and absolute standard of religious authority today (Romans 1:16; Luke 6:46; John 6:68). Biblical unity is not companion to the motto of at least one ministerial association: "We have agreed to disagree." The prophet Amos established a principle that applies to such agreements (facades of unity), "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). The implied answer to this rhetorical question is a resounding, "No!" The unity that should characterize the New Testament church is more than a mere union, as one contemporary proverb well illustrates. "Tying the tails of two cats together and tossing them over a clothesline is union, but it is not unity." 

The New Testament is the sole doctrine by which the church Jesus built must be guided (John 12:48; Jude 3). There is no basis for unity wherein something less than, additional to or instead of the New Testament is the premise for religious cohesion (Revelation 22:18, 19; Galatians 1:6-9). Sandwiched between the verses, "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3) and "Till we all come in the unity of the faith . . ." (Ephesians 4:13) are seven ones upon which unity in the Christian faith is predicated. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:4-6). One of the results of the attainment of biblical unity is stated in verse fourteen of this same context: "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." 

Among those whose religious beliefs are nearly the same, a wholly different approach to Bible authority still divides them into separate fellowships. As long as each group maintains its perspective of hermeneutics, unity is impossible (1 Kings 18:21; John 4:20). True unity would still be an impossibility even were all parties agreed to overlook their differences. God refuses to endorse such covenants; he already gave man his covenant for today, and it is this covenant alone to which all men must conform. 

Two verbal banners lead sincere religious people apart, rather than together. Those who rally to the verbal banner, "the spirit of Christianity" view Scripture oppositely from others who hoist their verbal banner, "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent; call Bible things by Bible names; do Bible things in Bible ways" (cf., 1 Peter 4:11). The former verbalization of hermeneutics views God's Word as relative and more subjective than absolute; whereas, the latter expression recognizes God's patterns, types, shadows, figures, principles, statements and commands as insoluble by contemporary sentiment toward them. 

A case in point, over which hermeneutical controversy contributed to division between what are now known as the Christian Church and the churches of Christ, is "What kind of music is permissible in Christian worship?" The latter group tenaciously defends singing as the only authorized music in worship from statements in passages like Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. 

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." 

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." 

However, God's Word (and application today) is unchanging. "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Colossians 3:17). The very next verse following Colossians 3:16 which teaches singing exhorts Christians to do everything by the authority of Christ. Is it right, by the spirit of Christianity, to add playing instruments of music to the worship of God? Or, did God mean what he said by specifying singing in Christian worship? If something can be added to the music God specified for worship, might other things (e.g., steak and eggs) be added also to another part of worship, the communion? God did not command music in worship. God did not, through his Word, teach men to sing and/or play in worship. God did, though, cause Paul by inspiration to twice record singing, a certain kind of music, for Christian worship. The hermeneutical principle that leads men to practice in worship the kind of music authorized by God also leads Christians to view the entire New Testament with similar gravity. 

God cannot be subdivided like a piece of property. God is not idly watching with disinterest as religious people attempt to denominate themselves into various sects (and in the process denominate to themselves a piece of God). The prayer which Jesus prayed for unity is the will of the triune Godhead. 

"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 know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:20-21). 

"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 divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For 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 of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). 

Unity based on the adoption of the Gospel alone as the final and absolute standard of authority in religion is one divine characteristic of the Lord's church. Left to his ingenuity, man devises divisive creeds that are not only extrabiblical, but denominate people into sectarianism. The New Testament is the only premise for religious cohesion in this age (Galatians 1:6-9; Jude 3). There is only one church (body), one God, one faith (doctrine or teaching) and one Lord (head of his church), among additional ones enumerated in Ephesians 4:4-6. Faithful Christians are forbidden from fellowshipping additional churches, gods, faiths, lords or anything contrary to New Testament prescription (2 John 9-11). Furthermore, Christians are exhorted to fellowship those who also are in fellowship with God (1 John 1:7). 

If the Bible means anything to anyone, it means something for what it says, not for what it does not say. The concept of Bible authority demands adherence to the Bible (in our age, the New Testament). Otherwise, there is no authority. The so-called spirit of Christianity approach to religion is at its heart subjective and only nominally aware of any authority in religion. However, in reality, authority is binding, or it is not authority! 

Jesus did not pray for sectarianism or denominationalism, which are names for religious division. Jesus prayed for unity. Further, is it strange that Jesus would expect this unity to be characteristic of the church for which he died, which he built and to which he adds the saved (Acts 20:28; Matthew 16:18, 19; Acts 2:47)? Also, is it strange that the churches of men, directed by the creeds of men, lack biblical unity? The New Testament church is divine in unity!