Consideration of Some Arguments Advanced for Union

IN these days of indiscriminate charity and easy-going tolerance it is regarded as an axiomatic truth that all professing Christians should ignore the differences that have hitherto kept them in separate denominations and should work harmoniously with others whose views may go directly in the face of the views held by them. This, needless to say, is not an axiomatic truth, neither has it any support from Scripture. Denominations, if they wish to justify their separate existence, ought to have certain Scriptural grounds for doing so, and if they ignore these grounds for the sake of uniting with those who do not recognise these grounds, then they are betraying their trust and proclaiming to the world that their adherence to certain doctrinal positions or principles was merely lip service. In reading the speeches delivered by some of the leading men in the present Union movement in Scotland one recognises quite a number of arguments that have been advanced in connection with such movements without the speakers seriously considering the glaring fallacies lurking in statements made with unhesitating confidence. Let us briefly examine some of these.

1 We have been told time and again that union is strength. This is an argument borrowed from the armoury of the world. And even in worldly things it is not always true that union is strength, but in regard to the matters pertaining to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ we are to recognise that its government is based on an entirely different basis from that of this world. The mode of its administration is also different from the mode of the administration of the affairs pertaining to the kingdom of this world. The weak and the helpless with the Lord supporting them have the promise of overcoming great and powerful foes. In the days of Isaiah, when fear took possession of Judah, confronted as they were by the great Assyrian power, the people set about counteracting the formidable opposition that menaced them by entering into confederacies with others—Syria and the Northern Kingdom. But Jehovah sent a message to His servant, saying—”Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread” (Is. viii. 12, 13). Again, when Asa was confronted by the mighty army of Zerah, the Ethiopian, it was not in numbers that his hope lay, but in Jehovah: “It is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee” (II. Chron. xiv. 11). The issue of the day in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah was proof that Asa had not misplaced his confidence. To lay too much stress on human power or organisation is too often the fruit of unbelief in God’s power.

1. It has been said again that Union will bring about economy in the administration of the Church. Well, supposing it does by reducing the number of congregations and the number of ministers required, that may certainly not be a calamity, for the reduction of the numbers of congregations and preachers provided they were not receiving and preaching the Gospel, will be a blessing. But this is not exactly what is meant. It is the old argument that was advanced by the pre-Union Free Church leaders prior to the Union in 1900, and with that church-wrecking experiment in our memories we cannot say we are much influenced by the above argument. We, as one of the small denominations of Presbyterians in Scotland, have had abundant evidence that the Lord can put it into the hearts of people to support His cause in a manner that no well-organised committees can ever hope to attain to. The very economies effected by a large Union may be eaten up in other directions, so that instead of having more funds for church purposes at the end of the day, there may be less. The foregoing arguments, however plausible they may be and suited to appeal to carnal-minded men and women, will not have much weight given to them by those who recognise the difference between the Kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world.

But it may be said that the Union leaders have been careful to bring forward Scriptural arguments for the Union of the Churches. They assert (1) that this movement is for the glory of God, (2) that the movement is guided by the Holy Spirit, and (3) that it is in accordance with Christ’s intercessory prayer. These are high claims, and in justice to those who bring them forward we purpose by give them careful consideration.

1. It has been asserted time and again that this movement is for the glory of God. Where such a high claim is made we naturally turn our thoughts to the men and Churches for which this claim is made. Do we find in the men stalwarts for the truth as it is revealed in God’s Word? Or is not the case that we find in many of the outstanding leaders in both Churches men who have openly declared that their sympathies are with the newer modes of theological thought which believers in God’s Word must admit are not in accordance with the statements of Scripture and the subordinate standards of the Church. This is not a statement made at random, but with the full knowledge of the extraordinary downward drift in the two uniting Churches in doctrinal matters. To say that a movement is for the glory of God is nothing unless it can be shown conclusively that the contracting parties are zealously working for God, and that the uniting Churches show something of that faithfulness for His truth that ought at all times to characterise the Church of Christ.

2. It has been said that this movement has been guided by the Holy Spirit. This is also a very high claim, and requires to be examined. Where the Spirit of God is at work He works by love. There is life and activity. The spiritually-minded are drawn together, while worldlings feel that they have no lot or part in these matters. In the present movement in Scotland there is a woful indifference to spiritual things. We are not aware that there is the slightest sign of any spiritual revival; on the other hand, all the facts point in the opposite direction. This does not indicate surely a movement guided by the Holy Spirit.

3. It has also been asserted that the movement is in accordance with the petitions of Christ’s great intercessory prayer when He prayed to the Father that His people should be one. This is a very specious argument, but one which we believe arises from a complete misinterpretation of the Redeemer’s words. But as our space is now exhausted, we hope to deal with it in a future issue.