Church of Christ Studies

The Church: It's Unity

In Eph. 4:1-6, Paul said: "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 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." Thus is declared to us the oneness of things sacred, holy, and Divine.

 

On last evening I tried to talk to you about the church of the New Testament with regard to the time and place of its establishment. As a preface to that, I suggested that various terms are used with reference to that organization, depending wholly upon the prominent feature discussed. For instance, if you view it as to its government, it is to be recognized as a kingdom, with Christ Jesus the monarch thereof. If you want to study it with reference to its organization and its make-up, it is most generally styled in the Bible a "body;" with reference to its relationship to the world, it is the "called out" or the "church." To many people that institution stands for but little, as one would judge from the casual remarks and the very light assertions made regarding it; but to a real student of the Bible, one who earnestly takes the matter to God in anxiety to learn Heaven's will, the church for which Christ died is the greatest institution the world has ever known.

 

I regret that there is such teaching abroad as this—for instance, that a man does not have to become a member of the church in order to be saved; that there are just as good people outside of the church as there are in it. Now, I do not believe either one of those statements, and I am sure that there would be a controversy on the part of some one just there. Your standard of goodness when thus speaking is different from the standard of goodness that I have in mind. A person may be a good man with reference to his first duty toward himself; he may be a good man with reference to his fellow men—his treatment and kindliness toward them; but in God's eyes no one is accounted a good man who has not done his duty to God as well as to himself and others. When I talk about a good man from God's point of view, I mean a man that is not only good to himself, good to his neighbor, but is good to God Almighty, in that he has bowed in submission to his will; and when he so does, he thereby becomes a member of the church of the Bible and is saved by virtue of that relationship with the God of his being. Let us, therefore, be exceedingly thoughtful and careful and not make the impression upon our children and those round about that the church is a nonessential, unimportant, and worthless institution.

 

If one man may be saved on the outside as well as on the inside, then, of course, two men could also be saved; and if two men can thus be saved independent of the church, of course two thousand could; and if two thousand, why not two million; and if two million, why not the entire human family, and thus render the church absolutely useless? Why should Christ, to establish it, fill it with his Spirit and become the head of it, if the human family can be saved without it as well as with it? I am sure, ladies and gentlemen, that just such casual, thoughtless remarks as are frequently made are responsible at this hour for the unconcernedness and the indifference on the part of the great masses of the people and their failure to appreciate and value as they should this institution so prominent upon the pages of New Testament story.

 

me submit to you this thought: The church of the New Testament is not a Jewish institution perpetuated from the days of Abraham. While the Jews do not think that, there are many professed followers of Christ who so declare. This is wholly erroneous and unsafe in the extreme. There is just one illustration that ought to forever settle a matter of that kind. In John 3 there is a story of Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, a Pharisee, entitled by birth and by relationship to all of the benefits that would come to a descendant of Abraham. This man came to the Savior by night and sought an inter-view with him, which resulted in the Savior's teaching him the great principle of entrance into the kingdom of God or the church that was to be established. Christ said to Nicodemus practically this: "Even if you are a Jew and a ruler thereof, such relations will not let you enter the church I have come to establish; for except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Now, all of your affiliations and relationships with Jewish institutions are profitless; and, therefore, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." it does not make any difference if he is Abraham's son, no matter if he is a Jew, no matter if he is a ruler thereof, he must submit to a new rite unheard of and unknown to Judaism, or else he cannot be inducted into the family of God. So that settles a point of that kind.

 

Now, further, friends, the church of the New Testament is not a political organization, managed, governed, and manipulated by worldly methods, by popular vote, or by the majority of human beings; for the Savior said (John 18: 36) : "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight: * * * but now is my kingdom not from hence." Therefore it is an institution separate from the world, subject to "the King of kings, and Lord of lords." This institution is guided by his word, directed by his Spirit, which dwells therein to make it a living institution, and in it Christ Jesus offers salvation to all mankind.

 

Now, I do not say, I do not mean, that the church does the saving; but I do suggest and positively state that Christ Jesus, our Lord, is the Savior, but that the place of salvation is in the church of God and in the family of high heaven; and outside of that family, God's church, or the fold, he has no children.

 

There are just two departments in life, two governments, to which I bow in obedience and yield myself. Either I am a servant to-night of His Satanic Majesty, I am under the dominion of the devil himself, or I am a child of God and a member of his family. I do not occupy middle ground. I am on one side or the other; and if I am saved, if I am a Christian, if I can read my title clear to mansions over there, it is evidence prima facie that I am a member of the body of Christ, the church of God, the family of the first- born. If, on the other hand, I stand to-night condemned, with sins unforgiven, and consigned to the regions of infernal abode, it is evident that I am a member of the devil's family.

 

So, then, every person ought to recognize just what the church of the Bible is and who compose it. In it are all the redeemed, all the saved, all those who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. The thing I now want to emphasize is the fact of its unity and its oneness. That very statement of itself denies and opposes the idea of its being a denomination. I know it is as common as can be that wherever you talk with men and meet with people they apeak about different denominations all over the city, all over this land and country of ours. But put it down, friends, for further study and for earnest consideration, that when you are reading in the Bible about the church, never get it in your minds that you are reading about some denomination; for no man ever did or ever can read from the book of God a single, solitary statement or even a hint at anything that smacks of denominationalism. That thing is modern, recent, and unknown to the book of God as certain as in your midst I stand, and there lives not a man in all the city of Nashville who can take God's book and turn to a single, solitary passage therein and find anything that even looks like a distant relation of modern denominationalism.

 

My friends, when you turn to the Bible and hear the Savior say, "Upon this rock I will build my church," do you get the thought that the Christ was talking about some denomination? If so, which one? When he said through Paul (Eph. 5:25), "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it," what denomination was that? As a matter of fact, no man lives tonight who can trace denominationalism back any further up the stream of time than the year 1521, in the days of Martin Luther, and back of that both sacred and profane history is as silent as the stars.

 

In Bible days, in apostolic days, Christians were known simply as members of the church. No one ever asked, "What church?" because there was but one—just the thing itself. Nobody talked about what "branch" the apostles and disciples were members of. They were not members of any church. They were branches themselves, members of the true vine; and until we get back to that point to-night, ladies and gentlemen, we need not expect other than confusion, infidelity, and embarrassment to confront us on every hand. Christ understood that quite well, indeed, when he said (John 17:20, 21) : "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one [not forty, not one hundred and fifty, not two hundred, as we now are]; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." Now note the purpose that he had in mind: "That the world may believe that thou hast sent me." The greatest curse on this earth tonight is religious division. The greatest hindrance to the cause of Christ is denominational rivalry. The greatest handicap and the greatest discouragement unto faithful, godly men is the fact that people who claim to be members of the body of Christ are torn asunder, riven, by human opinions, popular preference, rather than submit to God's will, all speak the same thing, and be of one mind and one judgment, as the Lord prayed and for which the apostles pleaded.

 

In 1 Cor. 12:12, 13 there is this statement: "As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Friends, in that statement what idea is emphatic, what point does the apostle stress? Evidently the unity, the oneness of the body, the church. As the body is one and has many members, and all members of the body being one, so also is Christ.  Paul, what did you say? "I have said that there is one body, and that by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Now, that is the way it was back in Bible times. But how is it, friends, in Tennessee? How is it in Nashville. All the religious organizations demand that the people submit to what they call "baptism," but into what are folks being baptized? One preacher is baptizing into one body, another preacher is baptizing into another body, and a third preacher is baptizing into a third body; and thus they go, while the devil rejoices exceedingly because of such a state of affairs. Does that sound like Scripture? Is that calculated to make believers? it does not sound as did the apostles' declaration, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body", not three or four or five or one hundred, as the case might be.

 

In the text read tonight (Eph. 4:4) it is said: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." The point emphasized is the oneness thereof. But when Paul says, "There is one body," do you get the idea that he meant to imply that there might be one hundred and ninety-nine more? When he says, "There is one Spirit," I take it that the intention was to teach us there is one Spirit, and but one. When he said, "There is one Lord," I get the idea that beside him there is none other. In the same connection Paul said, "There is one body;" and the conclusion must follow, therefore, that there is one, and but one.

 

But that is not all. In Rom. 12: 4, 5, taking this physical tabernacle wherein we dwell as the illustration thereof, Paul said: "As we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." it is the office of the eye to see, of the tongue to taste, of the ear to hear, of the nose to smell, and so on. Just as there are different members, and yet when brought together they compose this one body, even so in Christ Jesus every child of God on earth is a member, and the sum total thereof makes up but one body, of which Christ is the head. But in 1 Cor. 12: 18-20, I beg you note this statement:  "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." Note the statement. God, not man, not by popular vote, but God has set the members in the body as it has pleased him. "And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body."

 

Now, Paul said, "There is one body," and then climaxes it by saying, "There is but one." Jesus Christ, while here on earth, had one head, one body, composed of different members. Jesus Christ, at God's right hand to-night, has one body, one head; and in that body many, many members there be. Therefore, God's admonition is: "Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

 

Now, I next wonder what that body is, as this is mentioned so many times. In Eph. 1:22, 23, where Paul was speaking about the glorious resurrection of Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his triumphant ascension, he has this to say: "And [God] hath put all things under his feet, and gave him [that is, Christ] to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Paul, what did you say: "I have said, air, that the church is the body of Christ. it is the fullness of him that filleth all in all."

 

But, again (Eph. 5:23): "For the husband is the head of the wife, [watch the comparison] even as Christ is the head of the church." There the church of God is represented as married unto the husband. Just as the husband here on earth is the head of the wife, even so Christ is the head of the church, and he is the savior of the body.

 

We believe that it is wrong to be a polygamist. Our doctrine in this country is: one husband, one wife; and if a man be found guilty of violating that principle, he is dealt with severely. But I am sorry to announce that some of that same type who are so strict with reference to physical, earthly relationships wink at and permit, in their theory, Christ Jesus to be married unto about two hundred different bodies on this earth. Polygamy spiritually would be the result and the consequences appalling. True to every illustration, true to every principle, Christ is the husband, the church is the wife—one husband, one wife; one head, one body; one Father, one family. This is the truth of high heaven, the opinions of men and of popular public sentiment to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

I know, ladies and gentlemen, that things of that sort need to be told; and without any boasting whatever, but just as humbly as I possibly can say it, the man does not live on God's green earth that can get support from this book for any other thought than the unity of the people of God and the oneness of the church of the first-corn.

 

But there is another thought demonstrating the same idea (Col. 1:18) : "He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Just as there is one body, and but one, and since that body is the church, then it follows that there is one church, and but one, recognized by the God of our being.

 

My friends, what can you and I say, in the face of the onrushing tide of higher destructive criticism, against the wave of infidelity? What will be our defense in meeting the issue, in standing for God and for the Bible, while clamoring for institutions, hanging on to organizations the like of which are absolutely unknown in all of God's book?

 

Let me present to you a picture that is not wholly a matter of fancy. Suppose one of your ]earned set, who boasts of the Bible's being but a mythical tale, denies many of the things that to you and me are sacred, comes up to a preacher with Open Bible in hand and says: "Sir, I am here to tell you that you do not believe it yourself." "0, why not?" Does the man offer an insult? "Why," he continues, "let me prove it to you. You claim to believe the Bible, Mr. Preacher?" "Yes, sir." "You claim to be governed by it?)) "Yes, sir." "You propose to stand for it against all manner of destructive work?" "Yes, sir." "Well, then, I want you to take that Bible and show me on the inside thereof where God ever made mention of any kind of organization of which you boast and of which you are a member and to which you are giving the very best of your life. Now, Mr. Preacher, there is your own Bible. Just turn to it and read it, and I will hush up." Friends, out in the country we sometimes talk about folks catching up with their work. There is a preacher that is "done up." He hasn't a word on earth to say—absolutely none. What can he say? "0," he says, "Mr. Infidel, I am bound to admit I cannot turn to the Bible and find even the name of that institution for which I preach and to which I ask others to subscribe." If infidelity has not won a victory and raised aloft its blackest banner in gay triumph, then I am unable to see an argument of any sort. "Why," he says, "furthermore, you do not even propose to wear the name that the Bible mentions. The thing under which you are sailing and the colors you are flying are unknown to God's book. Therefore, Mr. Preacher, as an infidel, I want to drive you to one of two positions. Either come back and take a footing on the Bible, be a member only of that institution mentioned therein, be characterized only by the name in the Bible, or else join hands with me and let's both march down the way publicly denying it."

 

From all the destructive elements that are advanced tonight there is but one safe retreat and resort for God-loving men and women, and that is to recognize the oneness of God's people, recognize that we ought to be nothing, become a member of nothing, stand for nothing, uphold nothing, other than we can read from the book of God. When the Christian people of this country plant their feet upon that kind of foundation, then Infidelity will haul in her colors, furl her flag, and take to the tall timber, where she really belongs, and God's word will triumph in every phase of life.

 

But some of my very best friends, those whom I love and whom I have right and reason to believe love me, think that such preaching is wonderfully, wonderfully radical, and they try to pacify even your humble servant by suggesting: "Hold on, Brother Hardeman; let me tell you how it is. Why, we are all one body. You take all of the various orders, and we are one. We just have different heads—that's all. No use being disturbed about the matter." Here he begins to tell me who my head is, and then acknowledges his, and so on down the line. "Now," he says, "let's not be disturbed. That is the way of it." Well, well, what a picture! One great body of all professed Christians, and from that body, projecting in various directions, about two hundred heads ! What a monster! Friends, I cannot accept that. The judgment and the reason that I have absolutely rebel and cannot accept such a ridiculous presentation; and while I love to be kindly disposed toward my fellows and yield every possible point, I cannot accept such.

 

Then I have had them to try to justify it from a different point of view, and sometimes my very best friends suggest to me this: "Why, Brother Hardeman, this is the way: All of us have one common head—that is, Christ, our Lord—but we are just different bodies of people. Over here is one body, and over there is another good body, and over there another one." Friends, in all candor, what better is the picture when you present one head over about two hundred different bodies?

 

Every illustration in the Bible emphasizes the oneness of the church. Take the lesson of the vine and the branches, and it is in perfect harmony and in absolute accord with the oneness of heaven's truth. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. * * * I am the vine, ye are the branches." Between Christ and Christians there is that close, that unique, that identical relationship that exists between the vine and every branch emanating therefrom. Every branch is identical in character, in kind, in fruit, and in its prospect and hope in the by and by. There never was a vine from which there sprang out branches differing in origin, doctrine, and practice. That thing cannot happen. You destroy the simplicity that God intended to present if you have other in mind than the oneness of all the respective branches that cling tenaciously to the vine.

 

You tell me that the different religious bodies represent the branches. I beg to submit to you that at the time Christ thus said, such things were absolutely unheard of. Furthermore, Christ said to men and to women, his disciples round about: I am the vine, and ye are the branches. You—Peter, James, and John; Thomas, Philip, and Bartholomew— [now note] abide in me." Who is "me?" "I am the true vine" What is the duty of the disciples? "Abide in me." Friends, where are we abiding to-night? By public admission, are you abiding in some branch f God never said that, but he said: "You are all branches; abide in ma" Hence no abiding in any institution other than the Christ himself.

 

But, again, when the church of God is presented in the likeness of a family, Paul said (Eph. 3:14, 15) : "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." One family—part of the members thereof in the glory land; other faithful, godly characters still on time's side of eternity. But whether they be here or over there, Paul said there is one family and one Father thereof.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, God knowing my heart as I think I do myself, I do not want to be separated or different from any other professed Christian on the face of the earth; I do not want to give the enemy of Christianity the advantage of a divided front; and, just as far as God will permit me, I am ready to be broad and wide in yielding; but beyond his word I dare not go. Beyond the limitations of the authority of our King we dare not step. On the inside of the limitations fixed by the Christ himself we must plant our feet and simply become and be what God would have us be—simply his children, members of his family—and with that be content to rest our case.

 

But, again, when the church was spoken of under the likeness of the greet fold, the flock, Jesus said with reference to the Gentile world (John 10:16): "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; [now note] and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Hence, when Cornelius and his family were invited into the church of Christ, that statement was fulfilled. With the Jews, they became one; and Christ was the one shepherd over that fold, composed now of both Jews and Gentiles. There ought to be no consideration of any other matter whatsoever by professed followers of the Lord. That oneness is characteristic of every department of Bible teaching. Ye are God's building—singular. Ye are God's temple—not plural, but one. I would God to-night that all professed followers in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and elsewhere, would be content to have but the Bible as their creed, their discipline, their church manual, their church directory, their rule of faith and practice throughout life. There would be oneness on the part of all the splendid people of this great country. I would that all were content simply to become and be Christians, and that alone, without those things that differentiate them, those things that distinguish them, those things that are not mentioned in the Bible, but just simply followers of Christ. That is ail that a "Christian" means. I would that all of us were followers of Christ, members of the church that you read about in the New Testament. it is not mine. I did not establish it. I did not purchase it. I had nothing whatever to do with its launching. Suffice it to say it is my privilege to become a member thereof, together with all others who love the Lord. Then we be brethren, we break down the barriers, we destroy the things that differentiate, we wipe out those things on which infidelity thrives and over which His Satanic Majesty rejoices.

 

Christ's prayer would, therefore, be answered when the people recognized the oneness of the body of Christ and the unity of the church of the first-born. There is, therefore, one body and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling; there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; there is one God and Father of all, who is above all, and who is through all, and who is in you all.

 

My friends, is it too much tonight to indulge the hope that in the not far distant future all of us will be driven back to a strict construction of the word of God? Is it out of order to expect that because of the enemies of the book of God his people who claim to love him will be forced to take their stand upon the rock of truth sublime; that we will have to shear ourselves of our encumbrances, of all the extras, of all the superscriptions, of all the appellations, of 186 Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons all the man-made rituals and the human creeds, and follow the Bible, and the Bible alone—Christ, and Christ alone?

​

This is the platform upon which I propose to stand as best I may be able. I would not to-night be guilty knowingly of standing for anything untaught by the Bible which would serve as a barrier to my Christian fellowship with you. I will appreciate it as a matter of kindness if any man in Nashville will suggest one thing for which I stand that serves as a barrier to unity and oneness. I pledge my word and promise myself to-night, if the man will thus show me that God's book does not plainly demand it, I will gladly surrender and give that up that the cause of division may cease. If, on the other hand, there be one solitary thing, I care not what it is, which God's book demands and authorizes, if I, N. B. Hardeman, am not practicing that to-night, you will be a friend of mine if you will point it out, and I pledge you my word that, if possible, before the rise of to-morrow's sun I will be glad to incorporate that into the service and into my worship toward God.

 

Why, friends, I want to stand with all of God's people, and yet I want that foundation upon which we rest to be based upon God's word. I cannot conscientiously, consistently, nor scripturally accept a human name unknown to the Bible. I cannot to-night, with my regard for God's word, subscribe to any creed on earth save the Bible. I cannot bear any name other than the names mentioned therein. I cannot, consistent with my regard for the truth of God, become identified with any religious order the name of which is not found in God's book.

 

When I announce that platform, it is not narrow, it is not limited, it is not human; but it is big enough, broad enough, wide enough, and comprehensive enough for every son and daughter of God on earth to occupy and none feel that in so doing they have had to sacrifice a single principle of faith.

 

To that oneness and to that unity and to that harmony taught in the book of God I gladly invite the people.

 

But some one says: "Brother Hardeman, I understand that all you want is for us to come to you." My friends, that is not true, not true at all. I want you to come, not to me, no more than I come to you. That is not it. I beg you do this: Take your stand on God's book and eliminate all things that are not plainly taught therein; and when you so do, I will gladly come to you and take my stand with you, if there be any preference as to which way the coming is done.

 

I want you to come to God's book, come to Christ, accept what he said, believe what he taught, become and be what he requires; and if I am not there, at the very first opportunity I will gladly respond and stand with locked arms, and in Christ Jesus, our Lord, we will together march as a solid phalanx against all manner of spiritual wickedness until at last the righteousness and the kingdom of God shall cover the face of the earth as the waters cover the face of the mighty deep.

 

In conclusion, if anybody in this company believes the gospel of God's Son, if you will sincerely and earnestly repent of all your sine, if you publicly confess your faith in Christ Jesus and be buried with him in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and rise to walk in newness of life, it will make of you a Christian; it will make of you a child of God; and if thereafter you will be faithful to heaven's demand, loyal to God in his requirements, he will at last guide your footsteps safely home and finally introduce you and initiate you into the grandeurs and glories of our Father's home of the soul, across which the shadows cannot come.

 

I have tried to present this cause to you plainly; and now if any are here who will make God their choice, you are gladly invited.

​