• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword by Kenneth J. Clinton
• Introduction
• Chapter I. The Principle of Catholicity
• Chapter II. A Catholic Creed
• Chapter III. A Catholic Authority
• Chapter IV. The Principle of Liberty
• Chapter V. The Church
• Chapter VI. The Ministry of the Church
• Chapter VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
• Chapter VIII. The Historic Witness of Churches of Christ
• Chapter IX. Churches of Christ in the Present Scene
• Chapter X. Churches of Christ and the Charismatic Movement
• Conclusion
• Other Vital Publications
• Back Cover

      In re-writing and revising my previous book, "A Biblical Approach to Unity", published in 1957, I have re-quoted some extracts from various publications for which permission to quote was then obtained. Some material is also used from another of my books, "Living Responsibly", published in 1976, and a few extracts from various publications for which permission was obtained are also requited.

      I again express gratitude for that permission in relation to such quotations as are repeated in this book.

      Edinburgh, 1937, by Hugh Martin.

      The Divine-Human Encounter, by Emil Brunner, 1944.

      Report of the Third World Conference on Faith and Order, 1952. All used by permission of S.C.M. Press, London.

      The Evanston Report, reedited by Dr W. A. Visser't Hooft, 1955. Used by permission of S.C.M. Press London, and the United States Conference for the World Council of Churches, New York.

      Biblical Authority for Today, edited by Richardson and Schweitzer, 1951. Used by permission of S.C.M. Press, London, and The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

      Early Church History, by H. M. Gwatkin, 1927. Used by permission of Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London.

      Encounter. The contents of much of Chapter III were published previously as an article in the above Journal, Vol. 17 No. 21956. Permission to reprint was given by the Editor, Dr Ronald E. Osborn.

      The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism (English Translation 1948).

      Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Used by permission of the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

      Central Committee Minutes, 1969. Used by permission of the World Council of Churches, Geneva.

      Appreciation is expressed to Mrs Ethel Rankine for typing my material in readiness for the printer, and to Messrs D. R. Smith and A. E. White for reading the first draft of the material and making helpful suggestions.

      E. Lyall Williams is well qualified to give an introduction to the doctrines and practices of a people who have sought to restore New Testament Christianity as a means to bringing into being the unity of the whole church. The life and witness of Churches of Christ have been an important part of our Australian society as well as the church scene. Those of us who have been privileged to work with E. Lyall Williams appreciate the great quality of his life, the keen insights of his mind and the breadth of his ecumenical vision

      Since his retirement at the end of 1973 after 29 years as Principal of the College of the Bible and six years previously as a lecturer, he has conducted part-time ministries and been in demand for preaching, lecturing and counselling.

      He has found time in retirement to use his practical skills and tireless energy to promote the building of a new chapel at Boronia, during a part-time ministry there. While currently conducting a ministry with the church at Knoxfield, he is also involved with a building project there. But this is not enough to absorb his energy, as he is also building a tennis court on his property at the same time.

      This revision of his book "A Biblical Approach to Unity" has given the author the opportunity, as a wise senior statesman to reflect on present issues such as our relationship to the Uniting Church of Australia, Christians in Fellowship, and the Charismatic Movement--important issues for our churches as we move into the eighties.

Kenneth J. Clinton      

      In 1957 a book which I wrote was published under the title, "A Biblical Approach to Unity." It was an attempt to give a concise interpretation of the overall witness of Churches of Christ. it is now out of print and I have been asked by the Federal Literature Department of Churches of Christ to re-write and revise it.

      A new title has been chosen and the contents of this new book will be a reproduction of material from the earlier one with subtractions additions and revisions.

      It has been common among Churches of Christ to set truth over against tradition, to claim that we are bound by truth and not by tradition and to say that we have no tradition. If tradition means what is not established as fact we are right in not being bound by it. However, there are various meanings of tradition. For some tradition means preserved beliefs and practices going back to Christ and the Apostles but to which the Scriptures do not bear witness. It is a supplementary stream of authority in the Church. We readily reject tradition in this sense. Another meaning of tradition is the living stream of the Church's life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Under this guidance we interpret the Scriptures and apply our understanding in Christian worship, life and practice. In this sense Churches of Christ, like all other Christian communions, have a tradition. Furthermore, there are matters concerning which nothing is given in the Scriptures and we are left to common sense under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this area we have our accepted practice or tradition. Within the acceptable meanings of tradition there is no question that Churches of Christ have a tradition.

      When anyone sets out to present the position of Churches of Christ the attempt is made to portray their common tradition while recognising that there are diversities within it which show up in different emphases, attitudes and approaches. For example, in the respective areas of morality, church relationships and theology some are puritan and others are not, some are ecumenical and others are exclusive and some are conservative and tend to be literalistic while others are liberal and non-literalistic. Other differences will occur to readers.

      It is part of the tradition of Churches of Christ that no official statement of their position is ever made. Sometimes it is hard to maintain this tradition because there are situations in which a request is made for our official position or for a representative statement. Any attempt by a writer to state the position of Churches of Christ will involve interpretation and as such is likely to reflect a particular emphasis even when the attempt is made to reflect the common tradition.

      In Great Britain different emphases have led to a fairly open rift while in the United States of America differences led to overt division early in the twentieth century with the separation of the anti-organ Churches of Christ. Some of the issues which led to this division have continued in the group known as Disciples of Christ or the Christian Church and have caused a rift of varying dimensions from time to time and place to place. In the main the difference appears to be between a conservative theology and ecclesiology and a non-ecumenical spirit on the one hand and a more liberal theology and ecclesiology and an ecumenical spirit on the other. In Australia these differences exist without causing a rift in fellowship. We are held together by the common tradition by which we have realised our identity in spite of different emphases.

      While seeking to reflect the historical and general position of Churches of Christ, at some points the interpretation relates particularly to the position in Australia.

      The problem for Churches of Christ, as for all Christian communions, is whether they can find fulfilment of their historical identity in a wider identity which is the ideal of an ecumenical age.

      During the second century the pressure of radical and heretical sects accelerated the providential growth of a creed which bore witness to the universal faith, a body of writings which preserved the Apostolic witness and a Church which preserved both the creed and the canon of New Testament writings. Underlying this process was the principle of catholicity. This principle embraced the concepts of the Apostolic witness to authoritative, universal and uniting truth. The catholic is that which is apostolic, authoritative, universal and uniting. So there developed a catholic creed known as the Apostles' Creed because it summarised the Apostolic faith, a New Testament canon which bore witness to the Apostolic faith, and a catholic church--neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Anglican--because it preserved the apostolic, authoritative, universal and unifying faith or body of truth.

      From their beginning Churches of Christ have made a plea for the principle of catholicity.

      Thomas Campbell urged the removal of particularities. Let these be discarded and universalities will remain. On the ground of the universals unity and freedom will stand together. "Every effort towards a permanent scriptural unity amongst the churches, upon the solid basis of universally acknowledged, and self-evident truths, must have the happiest tendency to enlighten and conciliate." ("Declaration and Address", p. 12) In 1839 Alexander Campbell wrote a series of articles on Christian union in which he made the following proposal: "I propose that a congress of all Protestant parties (and if any one choose to add the Greek and Roman sects, I will vote for it) be convened in some central place, to be composed of delegates from each Protestant party, chosen in ratio to their entire population . . . When convened according to appointment, the rule of union shall be, that, whatever in faith, piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties shall be adopted as the basis of union; and whatever is not by all parties admitted as of divine authority, shall be rejected as schismatical and human." (Millennial Harbinger", 1839, p. 212) The plea for catholicity explains the saying that we seek to be a peculiar people in not being peculiar.

      We begin with the catholic Christ. No individual or no group has a monopoly of Him. He cannot be confined to particular ages, classes, nations or races, theological groups or denominations. We cannot shut Him up within our definitions or interpretations. We may differ within any one communion, and we may divide into different communions, but whatever our differences and divisions we have Christ in common. At the depths of our faith we stand together over against an unbelieving world. Because we belong to Him we dare not be proud, arrogant, exclusive, and unapproachable. When all the limits of ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding are brushed aside we find an underlying bond and unity in Him.

      The universally acknowledged witness to Him is the New Testament, and in the Bible we have a catholic authority. In the ecumenical work, "Biblical Authority for Today," published in 1951, we find an acknowledgment of this point. "In this book we, as members of different Christian confessions and denominations, living in different parts of the world, have made an attempt to read and interpret Holy Scripture together. We could not have done so unless our common starting point had been the Bible, which bound us together even before we knew each other personally. In all our churches around the world, the Bible is read and its message proclaimed in preaching, in liturgy, in fellowship and in service; the message of man's salvation through Jesus Christ, our Lord." "There is no question of an alternative (still less rival) authority to the Bible in the Church's tradition, in 'natural law' or the like." "The Christian's authority lies in the will of God. It is agreed that the Bible stands in a unique position in mediating that will to us. . . . It is agreed that the Bible is our common starting point, for there God's Word confronts us, a word which humbles the hearers so that they are more ready to listen and to discuss than they are to assert their own opinions. . . . It is agreed that, although we may differ in the manner in which tradition, reason and natural law may be used in the interpretation of Scripture, any teaching that clearly contradicts the Biblical position cannot be accepted as Christian." (pp. 240-241)

      We would urge all Christians to accept this lead and follow it sincerely and consistently. In obedience to the catholic Christ who is mediated to us in the catholic witness of the New Testament we shall realise the unity for which He prayed.

      The plea for a united church grows out of the conception of the Church as catholic rather than sectional and divided. As belonging to the catholic Christ the Church is essentially united and universal. We would bear witness to this in the use of a catholic name. The Church is Christ's and is properly described as the Church of Christ. In the

New Testament local churches are referred to collectively as churches of Christ or churches of God. (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 11:16; I Thess. 2.14)

      With the desire to honour Christ, we use a divinely given name, follow scriptural usage, and to maintain a catholic name, refer to each local church as a church of Christ. We regard any congregation of sincere followers of Christ as a church of Christ whether they call themselves Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or by any other name. We know that each of these prides itself on being a church of Christ, and we urge all to call themselves explicitly by His name. Other names are sectional and cannot be used by all. Consequently they are divisive.

      We never claim to be the Church of Christ. It is a mistake for us to be so described either by our own members or others. Often this error is made. Each local church is a church of Christ, and when these group together for voluntary cooperation or when described as a group we are known collectively as Churches of Christ. In Apostolic times there were no denominational "churches" so that "churches of Christ" was universal in its connotation and not particular. With the development of denominational "churches" it is no longer universal. It has become a proper name; but it is not used in an exclusive sense. Others are recognised as churches of Christ; by its usage we seek to preserve a witness to an undenominational ideal.

      With minor exceptions Christians in all ages and areas have accepted Baptism and the Lord's Supper as divinely ordained rites. However, there is much division concerning the doctrine and practice of these. We plead for a catholic approach to these catholic ordinances. All Christians who practise baptism recognise that immersion, as the ritual act of baptism has the sanction of the New Testament, and all accept the validity of this action. Here we are on catholic ground. Difficulties arise and division results from the adoption of non-catholic alternatives. The same is true concerning the candidate for baptism. All Christians admit that there is New Testament authority for believers as subjects for baptism. The immersion of believers is universally admitted as valid. When other than believers are accepted for baptism there is a departure from the catholic, and an acceptance of the sectional and divisive.

      In the simple act of obedience in meeting to remember Christ and to commune with Him we are on catholic ground. It is when theories about the Church, the ministry, and the elements enter in, that we become sectional and divided. There can be no division about the simple words of our Saviour. Division arises when we enter the field of what the Church thinks about itself, its ministry, and its practices.

      While the spirit of Christ in some ways excludes unbelievers it does not exclude believers. (Luke 9:45-50) Rather is it always warm and inclusive in its outreach within the household of faith. Anything we believe we have is a trust which we hold for others. We are committed to share whatever light we have and to receive any light that others may have to bring to us. We do not claim to be the only Christians, but keep before us the ideal of being Christians only. Thomas Campbell spoke of "our dear brethren of all denominations." ("Declaration and Address", p. 10) The plea for the union of Christians presupposes that there are Christians who are divided from one another and we desire their union in Christ. Writing on the subject of Christians Among the Sects, Alexander Campbell asked: "What could mean all that we have written upon the union of Christians on apostolic grounds, had we taught that all Christians in the world were already united in our own community?" ("Millennial Harbinger", 1837, p. 561) An exclusive, non-catholic spirit is contrary to the plea for, and the approach to, Christian unity. Writing to an ardent independent, Alexander Campbell said: "This plan of making our own nest and fluttering over our own brood, of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the 'elect few' who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated Pharisaism." ("Christian Baptist", 1826, p. 238) When commenting on the American Protestant Association in 1842, he pointed out that it was federation and not union, but went on to remark: "Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Let protestant parties come together, shake hands, look at each other's warts and wens, until they become familiar with their mutual deformities and feel the need of mutual sympathy and condolence. It is good to come together in a friendly mood. To taste the sweets of one general meeting for one common end, may be a sort of prelibation of future union on principles more catholic than either Papist or Protestant can yet appreciate." ("Millenial Harbinger", 1843, p. 353) He suggested that such a meeting may "tend a little to the cultivation of that Christian and catholic spirit which must precede any union of Christians."

      Churches of Christ have claimed to be not a denomination. If by this is meant that we do not stand for anything that is sectional or sectarian but plead only for what is catholic there is some ground for the claim not to be a denomination. However, if by denomination is meant that which is separate we cannot escape the fact of being a denomination. The point has been made already that in Apostolic times the description, "churches of Christ" covered the whole Christian community but in the historical situation the whole Christian community is expressed in different groups known by

different names and the name, "Churches of Christ," cannot help but denominate a separate group of Christians.

      As a separate group we are not an odd sect. We hold the basic Christian faith in God as Creator and, Father, in Christ as the Word made flesh our Saviour and Lord, and the Holy Spirit as God active in human life as the One who renews and sanctifies. Our worship shares in all those things common to the Christian faith. We accept the universally accepted values, principles, ideals and standards of the Christian faith.

      All those things for which we stand as truth are to be found scattered among other Christian communions. Why then do we maintain our separate identity? Simply because we seek to hold together in one piece all the truths which we see scattered among the churches and at the same time avoid all things which are not catholic which we also see scattered among other churches.

      Sometimes members of Churches of Christ have spoken of the Bible and more particularly of the New Testament as their creed but this may be regarded as a loose way of referring to the New Testament as the only guide to faith and practice. More consistently the emphasis has been upon Christ as our creed. A prevalent watchword has been: "No Creed but Christ."

      I once heard a leader in Churches of Christ say that this watchword is so much hogwash. Others may say that we should scrap this slogan. Before we say or do anything rash it is important that we examine the historical and theological import of this watchword.

      It is important to recognise the nature of a creed which may be defined as a summary of essential belief which serves as a faith-test of a Christian and is used as a condition of church membership and a test of fellowship. The Christian community will teach and foster beliefs not included in the summary of beliefs that serve as a test of fellowship. A creed enshrines the faith that makes one a Christian, other beliefs follow or are accepted because one is a Christian. There may be some differences in the total system of faith embraced by different Christians but the essential faith expressed in a creed is the same for all.

      From early times the Church engaged in formulating creeds probably beginning with creedal confessions in connection with baptism. These developed into attempts to provide summaries of essential belief by which the faith could be preserved and the unity of the Church maintained. They became the official standards of faith, the measure of orthodoxy. The outstanding ecumenical creeds such as the Apostles' Creed of the second century and the Nicene Creed of the fourth century are well known. Denominational Confessions of a later day were formulated with the same purpose of being tests of fellowship. With such creeds as these in mind when engaged in a debate with N. L. Rice, a Presbyterian minister, in 1843, Alexander Campbell said: "When, then, we use the word 'creed' in this discussion, we do not mean the truth nor the faith, the law nor the gospel, the apostles' writings, or those of the prophets. Nor do we mean our simple belief in the testimony of God. We all have a belief

and knowledge of Christian doctrine; but that belief or knowledge is not what is indicated by a creed. A creed or confession of faith is an ecclesiastic document--the mind and will of some synod or council possessing authority--as a term of communion, by which persons and opinions are to be tested, approbated, or reprobated." ("Campbell Rice Debate", p. 762)

      With this understanding of the nature, purpose and use of historical creeds and confessions Churches of Christ have found reasons for rejecting them. It should be noted that so far as the ecumenical creeds, in particular, are concerned, the objection is not to their contents. The items of belief in the Apostles' Creed, for instance, would be generally accepted by members of Churches of Christ. Rather is the objection made to the use of such creeds as tests of fellowship.

      Denominational confessions reflect theological deductions. The theological conclusions of John Calvin, for instance, find expression in the Westminster Confession of faith. Pioneers of Churches of Christ reacted to certain aspects of Calvinistic theology and it became characteristic of the movement to break from some prominent tenets of Calvinism which did not appear to be soundly based on Scripture. The idea of human inability to respond to the gospel unless the Holy Spirit first directly entered the heart and quickened a person; the idea of election which meant that only the elect experience regeneration; and the idea of predestination which issued in election and salvation insomuch that if one is elected to salvation one will never fall from grace (once saved, always saved) were the elements of Calvinism commonly rejected. In the context of this theology it was the practice to ask a professed convert to relate some experience which would assure the person concerned and the church that such a one was really among the elect and could be received into church membership.

      The Nicene Creed was formulated in the midst of a controversy that rent the Church in the fourth century. It concerned the relation between the Father and the Son. We appreciate the desire of the fathers to preserve the doctrine of the Incarnation and the deity of Christ. They sought to express what they understood as Biblical doctrine in the thought forms of the day. Hence they explained the relation between the Father and the Son in terms of substance. The question was whether they were of like substance or of the same substance. It is interesting to note that some opponents of the creed at the time objected to its unscriptural language.

      The process of theology is to deduce conclusions from Scriptural statements and interpret them in contemporary language and

thought forms and then to organise our theological propositions into a systematic whole which is consistent within itself and at the same time consistent with other accepted systems of knowledge. This is a natural and legitimate process the value of which cannot be denied. However, while recognising the value of theology we accept the statement made long ago by Thomas Campbell that theology has only relative value. This finds particular point in the observation that theological interpretations should not be made binding on others or made a test of fellowship. The tradition of Churches of Christ on this matter finds root in articles six and seven of Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address": "Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's Holy Word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God. . . . Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession. . . . Although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient; and the more full and explicit they be, for those purposes, the better; yet as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion: unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment; or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers."

      B. W. Stone and his associates emphasised the point that they would accept those who used "Bible words" to express their faith concerning Christ even though they differed in theological interpretations of their Biblical confession.

      The watchword: "No Creed but Christ" was an expression of protest against making theological deductions terms of fellowship. Further, while historical creeds and confessions were formulated as a rallying point for unity their imposition and use as terms of fellowship sometimes provoked division rather than promoted unity. The plea for no Creed but Christ was set against the divisive potential of creeds and confessions. This point is allied with the further observation that

the watchword was emphasised in order to underline the principle of liberty and to guard against the scandal of heresy hunting. A Christian is not to be measured by his adherence or non-adherence to theological deductions, theories and opinions but simply by his commitment to Christ.

      Throughout the history of the Church a great emphasis has been laid on orthodoxy as expressed in doctrinal or theological propositions. Attendant upon this has been the danger of construing faith as intellectual assent to correct propositions. The watchword "No Creed but Christ" is intended to stress the truth that the essence of the Christian faith and life is personal commitment to the Person of Christ as Saviour and Lord.

      Sometimes it has been said that Churches of Christ make baptism of believers a creed but our insistence on baptism as an act of obedience to Christ's command no more makes it a creed than does the emphasis on the Lord's Supper, honesty and truthfulness make these creeds.

      While supporting the enthusiastic promotion of various beliefs which we regard as important we err if we make such beliefs a measure of others and by our attitude and pressure make them terms of fellowship. This is the error of fostering unwritten creeds. If we have fallen into this error the answer is not to scrap our slogan but rather to take it seriously and with understanding and endeavour to live up to it.

      We do well to recognise the value of creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as authentic witnesses to the historic faith of the Church and as providing real aids in worship and Christian education provided they are not made terms of fellowship. Having said this we are brought back to our conviction that the one confession of faith that should be required as a prerequisite for baptism into Christ and the Church is the New Testament creed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. We do not begin with the Bible or the Church. The Bible is a witness to Christ and a means of bringing us to faith in Him. The Church is a fellowship that fosters our faith and stimulates the good life. We are not saved by the Bible or the Church. They are not objects of faith or worship; they are means. The end is Christ.

      Our creed is a Person, not theories about Him. History has provided varying theories and controversies concerning the Person of Christ. Men have sought to explain and have dogmatised on the metaphysical relationship between the Father and the Son and between the divine and the human in Christ. Through all the controversies one thing has stood firmly as the abiding Christian

faith, namely, the Lordship of Christ in thought and experience. We think of Him and experience Him as Lord in our obedience. A similar thing is true concerning the Saviourhood of Christ. During the Christian era there has been a crop of theories as to how Christ saves. They run all the way from a ransom to Satan theory to a moral influence theory. But through all the theories one thing has stood firmly as the abiding Christian faith, namely the Saviourhood of Christ in thought and experience. He saves not because of our theories but in spite of them. The important thing is that we experience the Atonement rather than explain it. Christ truly accepted in faith and obedience liberates in the experience of forgiveness, reconciliation, deliverance and new life.

      The essence of Christianity is personal response to a Person. It began with that response and continues with the same response. That truth is highlighted by the watchword: "No Creed but Christ." Hymn writers have reminded us that the catholic Christ is the meeting point for all Christians whatever their differences and divisions.

      In the light of the present use of creeds and the prevailing attitude to them it may be asked, what is the relevance of the watchword: "No Creed but Christ?" Our judgment is that it hardly has relevance to denominational divisions but it seems very relevant to the rift that so easily arises from the making and pressurising of unwritten creeds and to freedom of mind and spirit which must find expression in a variety of ways. Its emphasis on personal commitment to a Person will never lose its relevance.

      We thank God for the heritage of a catholic Creed.

      From the beginning Churches of Christ have emphasized the authority of the Scriptures, especially the New Testament. It has been a prominent plank in our tradition but we are not alone in the acceptance of this authority. We join with others in emphasising the authority of the Scriptures and make the point that here we have a catholic authority. The doctrine of authority raises various issues and I wish to reflect on these in the context of the tradition of Churches of Christ.

      It is obvious that in every area of life if there is to be a game, order, justice, security, stability, or any kind of community there must be some commonly accepted authority.

      The final authority for religious people is God. His mind and will provide the Absolute. But God is known to man only by revelation. H is nature, character, mind and will must be disclosed to us by His initiative. God must descend in order to be fully known.

      It is true that God has not left Himself without witness. He is manifest in a general way and is generally known through nature, history, and man's aesthetic, moral and religious experience. The living religions of the world and the historical moral systems bear witness to this general revelation or manifestation of God, but at the same time they bear witness to the inadequacy of this general knowledge. A manifestation of a different and higher order is necessary to an adequate knowledge of God. God must take special action and communicate with man in a supernatural way to be fully and truly known. Some prefer to confine revelation to this special self-manifestation of God. Whatever our terminology of revelation, we are convinced that God has disclosed Himself to man and given us a knowledge which could not be gained apart from divine initiative.

      We believe this revelation has been given through the history of Israel--through what God did--and through what He said through the inspired prophets of Israel. The Old Testament may be described

as a record of inspired history and inspired men. The culmination of this communication of God to men is found in Christ. The complete and perfect revelation is found in what God did and said in and through Him.

      For Christians the final authority is found in the revelation of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is clearly asserted in the ecumenical statement found in the report of Edinburgh, 1937: good calls and fashions His chosen people and speaks His word to His prophets and apostles, interpreting to them the meaning of His action. in the fullness of time the Word, the Eternal Son of God, is manifested in Christ our Lord, the Incarnate Word, and His redeeming work. . . . We are at one in asserting the uniqueness and supremacy of the revelation given in Christ, in whose name alone salvation is offered to the world." ("Edinburgh", 1937, Hugh Martin, p. 42)

The Authority of the Scriptures.

      God is revealed in Christ, and Christ is known to us authoritatively only through the records of the New Testament. There we have the witness to His mind and will. The witness of the New Testament is authoritative because it is objective, that is, beyond the inner, individual and personal experience and ideas or opinions of any one person. My experience of Christ may be authoritative for me, but it cannot be authoritative for others. It is subjective, inner, individual and personal. Our individual experience of Christ, apart from direct revelation, can only begin with the knowledge of Him as He is disclosed to us by the witness of the New Testament. That witness belongs to all. The revelation to which witness is borne here is something which comes to us and descends upon us from without. We must begin with this universal and objective authority.

      A high doctrine of inspiration is characteristic of Churches of Christ. Because the fact of inspiration is claimed and is evident in the Scriptures we have consistently asserted the fact of inspiration, but it cannot be maintained that as a people we have tied authority to any particular theory of inspiration. Various theories have been and are held among us, but no individual or group can say this is the theory of Churches of Christ. While in some particular instances it is indicated how the Word of God was communicated to men--through a vision, or dream or visitation--for the most part there is no disclosure of the process of inspiration. There is no doctrine of the "how" of inspiration, but simply a claim to the fact. In view of this all we can claim is the fact. Any theory as to how inspiration took place is in the realm of opinion. Theories are individual and particular. What is universal and representative among us is the acceptance of the fact of inspiration and the authority of the Scriptures.

The Grounds of Our Acceptance of the Authority of the Scriptures.

      A reading of the Old Testament makes abundantly clear the conviction of those ancient writers that God really had to do with man in word and deed. He communicated truth to them insomuch that they felt justified in using a formula such as: "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying." It may be said that the believing community in that day accepted the word as from God because of a quality in the message and because it was confirmed in their experience. This was surely the reason why the books of the Old Testament were progressively received into the Jewish Canon.

      It is important to recognise how the authority of the Bible is wrapped up with the quality of its message. Whatever the claims within the Bible, its inspiration and authority could not be accepted if it contained what is obviously unworthy in the light of reason and our God-given sense of value. Authority is something inherent. It is not something which is conferred on the Bible by a theory of inspiration. Its claim to inspiration and authority rests upon its quality. We accept the Bible as in some sense God-breathed because of the quality we find in it. In the last analysis we experience the inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is an experience rather than an inference.

      In the fullness of time the believing community accepted Christ because of what He was, and because of the testimony of the old prophetic Scriptures. In turn the Church accepted the Old Testament as a witness to a divine word because of what Christ was. The Scripture fed men to Christ, and He then confirmed faith in those Scriptures as bearing a divine word. Divinity meets in the witnessing word and the Living Word.

      The New Testament is a record of Christ's life and teaching, His deeds and words, and of the Apostolic interpretation of Him. We are confronted with the historical Jesus and the Apostolic doctrine of Christ. The writers of the New Testament believed they were writing under the inspiration of God and Christ's promise that the Spirit would guide them into all truth was being fulfilled. Paul was firmly convinced of his own experience on the Damascus Road and in following days. He staked his life on the conviction that he had been face to face with the divine Lord. This experience, combined with the facts preserved by the Church, convinced Paul that the gospel he preached was a word of God and no mere word of man.

      We accept this conviction of Paul and other New Testament writers for two main reasons. Firstly, because the Holy Spirit in us confirms to us His word in the New Testament. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. . . . They are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14) But the Spirit in each of us and in the Church, discerns

the things of the Spirit of God in the New Testament. Deep calls to deep. Secondly, we accept the New Testament witness as from God because it is consonant with Christ. The written word is consistent with the Living Word. Though He is mediated to us by the Bible, He is the standard by which the Bible itself is measured.

      Christ is at the heart of the Bible. The Old Testament points forward to Him and the New Testament looks back to Him. He is the keystone of an arch. It is the nature of a keystone to lock and hold other stones together as a whole, while it holds its position through the correlation and co-operation of the other stones. In terms of this figure both the Old Testament and the New Testament, without Christ, are unsupported arcs. He, without the Old and New Testaments, is an unsupported keystone. None stands alone; but together they stand in a coherent whole. The divine word leads us to faith in the divine Lord, and the divine Lord leads us to faith in the divine word. The Old Testament, and New Testament, and Christ cohere as a consistent whole. The divine Lord and the divine word hold together as an authoritative whole.

      To this line of thought we find an interesting parallel in "Biblical Authority for Today": "It is agreed that the centre and goal of the whole Bible is Jesus Christ. This gives the two Testaments a perspective in which Jesus Christ is seen both as the fulfilment and the end of the Law." ("Richardson and Schweitzer", p. 241)

      The words of the late Professor Robertson Smith sum up the matter in attractive form: "If I am asked why I receive Scripture as the Word of God and as the only perfect rule of faith and life, I answer with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, because the Bible is the only record of the redeeming love of God, because in the Bible alone I find God drawing near to man in Christ Jesus, and declaring to us in Him His will for our salvation. And this record I know to be true by the witness of His Spirit in my heart whereby I am assured that none other than God Himself is able to speak such words to my soul." (Quoted in "The Bible Teacher's Difficulties", Rae, p. 19)

The Primary Witness to the Facts of Revelation.

      We believe the Bible stands in a unique position as the primary witness to the facts of revelation. This bears upon the point of the finality of the Christian revelation.

      It appears that at first the facts of revelation in and through Christ were preserved through an oral tradition. At that stage the community was the mediator of the facts. However, the tradition was soon put into writing. We can conceive of the possibility of the tradition being preserved through the successive testimony of the Christian community, but the dangers of memory and oral tradition are

apparent to all. It seems providential to us that the facts of revelation were preserved in writing, and that from among all the writings there was a selection made by the Church. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this selection was made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that the New Testament appeared as an accepted record of the tradition or the facts of revelation. It came to stay as a primary witness to Christ and the whole system of truth that centres in Him. Here was testimony that came from eye-witnesses, or was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. They stood in a position in which no others can stand. Their testimony had on it the seal of the community in which the oral tradition was preserved. All other writings or any other form of record is secondary.

      As the Spirit was behind the witness of the New Testament writers and behind the selection of the books of witness, we can surely claim a finality for the facts of revelation to which the New Testament bears witness. If any claim is made to a progressive revelation beyond the facts to which the New Testament bears witness, we are prone to ask, what new fact of revelation, new truth, or new doctrine can be substantiated? New understanding and new applications of given facts must be accepted with humility and gratitude, but this is not new revelation. Furthermore, if any later tradition within the Church be claimed as newly given truth we believe it should always be tested by what is given in the witness of the New Testament. Nothing can stand which is inconsistent in principle with what comes through that witness. It is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit in the ongoing Church should contradict Himself as operative in the Apostolic Church as known through the witness of the New Testament.

      Members of Churches of Christ in common with other Christians refer to the Bible as the Word of God. This usage bears witness to a deeply rooted conviction that God has communicated Himself to man in a unique way through the witness of the Scriptures. Such general usage, however, calls for analysis.

      Revelation takes place through a divine-human encounter. God takes the initiative. Man responds by faith. Out of the meeting of God and man the Bible has emerged as a witness to the experience. Man was confronted with God in events. There was the event of creation and then specific events in history. Certain men looked on these events and with a prophetic insight born from above they interpreted them as acts of God. God was revealed in history in what He did. There was an acted word of God. At the same time some men became aware of divine communication. They do not tell us how this communication took place. There is no explanation of the process. But they were sure that a word of the Lord came to them, and other

people of faith accepted their testimony. In some sense there was a spoken word of God. By this same prophetic insight there was a grasping of eternal truth. The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah shows how they penetrated the depths of perfect love with its essential principle of vicarious sacrifice. Then the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, fulfilling the truth anticipated by the prophet. The Living Word confirmed the acted and spoken word. The Bible bears witness to this acted, spoken, and Living Word. The Word of God is always a living force and through the witness of the Scriptures that Living Word is mediated to us. When the writer to the Hebrews said the word of God is quick and powerful he was surely referring to an eternal, living word of God to which the Scriptures, including his own writing, bear witness. The hour is set for a grand experience when a man becomes aware of the Living Word of God through the witness of the Scriptures.

      As with the swing from an infallible Church to an infallible Book there is always a danger that people who lay such emphasis on the Book may make it an end in itself and fall into a bibliolatry. They tend to worship the word rather than the Word made flesh. The worship of the Book can make us un-Christlike, but to worship Him to whom the Book bears witness is the way to Christ-likeness. The writer of the fourth Gospel sets the primary witness in its right place when he says: "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name." (I John 20:31)

A Clear Distinction.

      We have been careful to draw attention to the distinction between the covenants and claim final authority for the New Testament. The Old Testament is not undervalued, discarded, or rejected. As a witness to the revelation of God in history its values remain. The roots of the New are in the Old and it serves as a preparation for the New. Indeed the Old often serves as a key in unlocking the treasures of the New. It must be recognised that there is both continuity and discontinuity between the Old and the New. Churches of Christ may have erred in so emphasising the discontinuity as to overlook the continuity. But it appears to us that the greater error is so to stress the continuity, as to overlook the discontinuity. Here a tension must be maintained as in other cases.

      It seems important to us to avoid carrying the Old Testament over into the Church in the sense of accepting its conceptions, standards, and institutions as authoritative for us. We should not forget the words of the Master: "Ye have heard it said by them of old time. . . . But I say unto you . . ." (Matt. 5) This distinction is not peculiar to

Churches of Christ today, but we have sought to maintain a consistency in this matter.

      Confusion will result in relation to the Christian ethic concerning war, slavery and the like, the doctrine of the Church and the ordinances, the conception of the priesthood and the ministry, and sabbatarian issues, if we do not keep in mind the definite discontinuity between the Old and the New.

      The clear distinction between the covenants is Biblically based. In the Old Testament the idea of a covenant between God and man recurs. "Yahweh" as a name for God means "covenant maker." Covenants were made with Noah, Abraham, and with Israel as a nation upon the deliverance from Egypt. The covenant with the nation was symbolised by the Ark of the Covenant. This idea of a covenant between God and man appears throughout the history Psalms, and prophecy of the Old Testament. The division of the Bible into the Old and New Testament is a constant reminder of the two great covenants between God and man: the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant through Christ.

The Institution and Basis of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel.

      According to Exodus 19:5-8, God said: "If ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." The people replied: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do."

      The basis of this covenant was the law spoken by the voice of God on Sinai, partly in the hearing of the people and partly to Moses who was to relay it to the people. (Exod. 20-24) The words spoken on Sinai in the hearing of the people were the Ten Commandments which are particularly described as the "words of the covenant." (Exod. 34:28) Deuteronomy 9:10 tells us they were written by the finger of God on tables of stone. They were placed in the ark (Deut. 10:5) and called "tables of Testimony" (Exod. 31:18) while the Ark itself was called "the Ark of Testimony." (Exod. 25:22)

      The words given by God to Moses were written in a book and he read them to the people who replied: "All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient." (Exod. 24:7) Moses then took blood and sprinkled the people and the book and said: "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exod. 24:8; Heb. 9:19-20)

The Institution and Basis of the New Covenant.

      In Jeremiah 31:31-34 we have the prediction of a new covenant:

      "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the AM

that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake. . . . But this shall be the covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel."

      The writer to the Hebrews quotes this prophecy and draws attention to its fulfilment in a better covenant of which Christ is the mediator. He points out that if the old had been faultless there would have been no need for the second covenant "established upon better promises." (Heb. 8:6-13)

      The doctrine of a new covenant is taught by Christ in the institution of the Lord's Supper. (Luke 22:20) We should compare also Paul's words: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." (I Cor. 11:25) Paul strikes the same note elsewhere in the words: "Who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant." (II Cor. 3:6)

      The letter to the Hebrews speaks of the first covenant: "Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service." (Heb. 9:1) Having summarised those ordinances, the writer presents the superiority of Christ and His sacrifices. (Heb. 9:13-15; cf. also Heb. 8:6,7,13)

      The basis of the first covenant was the law given to Moses, especially the Ten Commandments, while the basis of the New Covenant is the grace of God revealed and effected through Christ. (John 1:17) So Paul says: "Ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6:14)

The Contrast of the Covenants.

      The religion of the Old was Judaism, while the religion of the New is Christianity. The former was a religion of law, while the latter is a religion of grace. As a religion of law, Judaism was characterised by precepts, while Christianity is characterised by principles. The law was a tutor to bring men to Christ. (Gal. 3:24-25)

      Under the law people were servants, school children, immature; while in Christ we are sons.

      The leaders of the Old were prophets, priests, and kings; while the leader of the New is Christ who is Prophet, Priest, and King. The leaders of the Old were human, sinful, and mortal. They had to bring offerings for their sins and were succeeded by others upon death. The leader of the New is divine, perfect and eternal. He needed to bring no offering for His own sin, but offered Himself, a perfect sacrifice, complete, made once for all. (Heb. 4:15; 5:3; 7:23-24; 8:3; 9:14; 10:1-14)

      The Old presented types or shadows, while the New presents the antitypes or realities of the gospel. (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17)

      While the Old was a covenant with a nation, the New is a covenant with individuals and a community drawn from all nations.

      Paul's contrast is clear in II Corinthians 3:3-14 where he sets over against each other, Old Testament and New Testament; tables of stone and tables of the heart; the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life; the ministration of death and the ministration of the Spirit the ministration of condemnation and the ministration of righteousness; the glorious and the much more glorious, that which is done away and that which remains.

      We see in various of these passages the suggestion that the Old is abrogated by the New. This is confirmed in Paul's letter to the Colossians where he teaches that the bondage of the ordinances of the law is taken away and nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) In Romans 7:1-6 he makes the same point by an analogy from marriage. As a woman is freed from the law of marriage by the death of her husband, so Christians are freed from the law by the death of Christ. (Eph. 2:11-18)

      The authority of the Old ended with the death and resurrection of Christ. Nothing in the Old Testament is binding on Christians unless it be re-instated in the New Testament.

The Re-instatement of the Eternal Contents of the Old Covenant.

      The Old Covenant contained moral and ceremonial law. Moral law belongs to the eternal order and cannot be abrogated. It is re-instated in the New Covenant, though often it is revised and heightened

      Some describe the Ten Commandments as the Moral Law, and the rest of the law found in the Old Testament is called the Ceremonial Law.

      However, not all of the Ten Commandments are moral laws. Some are religious and ceremonial, such as having no other God, not worshipping images, not taking God's name in vain and observing the Sabbath. Further, not all the moral laws of the Old Covenant are found in the Ten Commandments. Some are found in the "Ceremonial Law." This makes it clear that it is a mistake to call the Ten Commandments the Moral Law, and that it is also mistaken to think that the reinstatement of the moral law of the Old Covenant means the reinstatement of all the Ten Commandments.

      Various moral laws from the Old Covenant, not found in the Ten Commandments, are re-instated in the New Covenant.

      The law of love, as found in Deut. 6:4 and Lev. 19:18, is re-affirmed in Mark 12:28-31.

      In Matt. 5:43-44 it is heightened.

      By a comparison of Exod. 21:24 and Matt. 5:38-39 we see that Jesus revised the law of revenge. An examination of Matt. 5:31-32 and parallel passages along with Deut. 24:1 shows a revision of the law of divorce also. These instances are all taken from what some call the "Ceremonial Law" of the Old Testament.

      In various ways all the Ten Commandments are re-instated except the fourth which relates to the observance of the Sabbath day. Our Lord as a Jew, had respect for the law of the Old Covenant though He repudiated legalism. After His crucifixion and resurrection the Christian community assumed a liberty in regard to days. Paul gave a definite lead in this by some clear comments. "Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect of a sabbath day." (Col. 2:16) "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. 14:5) Such statements as these could never have been made had it been believed that the old Sabbath Law was still binding.

      Though references are rare in the New Testament it is clear that the early Church observed the first day of the week in honour of the risen Lord. (Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:1-2) History confirms this conclusion by showing that Christians observed the first day of the week as the Lord's Day.

      We do not regard Sunday as the anti-type of the Jewish Sabbath and do not refer to it as the Christian Sabbath. For this reason we should not invoke the fourth commandment in support of Sunday observance. The Christian Sabbath is not a day, but a rest in the Lord. (Heb. 4:1-11) The Christian observance of the first day of the week as the day of the Resurrection is supported by Apostolic precedent and experience.

The Church and The Scriptures.

      One of the problems faced in the Faith and Order discussions of the ecumenical movement is the relation of the tradition of the Church to the Bible. The problem is clearly stated in the Edinburgh report: "There is a matter for fuller discussion in the problem of the tradition of the Church and its relation to Holy Scripture. By tradition is meant the living stream of the Church's life. Thus the Orthodox East, but not it alone . . . does not exclude from tradition some beliefs which do not rest explicitly on Scripture, though they are not in contradiction with it.

      "We are at one in recognising that the Church, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, has been instrumental in the formation of the Bible. But some of us hold that this implies that the Church under the guidance of the Spirit is entrusted with the authority to explain, interpret and complete the teaching of the Bible, and consider the witness of the Church as given in tradition as equally authoritative with the Bible itself. Others, however, believe that the Church . . . is bound exclusively by the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice and, while accepting the relative authority of tradition, would consider it authoritative only in so far as it is founded upon the Bible itself." ("Edinburgh", 1937, Hugh Martin, pp. 43-44)

Churches of Christ would be among those taking the latter position.

      Even among those churches which assert the final authority of the Scriptures, it appears that on some points, when pressed, they will accept the authority of tradition as supplementary to the Scriptures. The adoption of infant sprinkling on the basis of tradition is a case in point.

      Among those who accept the authority of tradition it is asserted that the Church was before the New Testament and that the authority of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the Church

      It is true that the Church existed before any of the books of the New Testament were written, and it was not until some time later that the individual books were recognised as authoritative and selected by the Church to form the New Testament canon. But the Church was produced by the facts of revelation. These facts were before and beyond the Church. It was under their authority from the beginning. These facts were first preserved orally. The written word was merely a new and later form of preservation. The New Testament is only the cistern in which is preserved the facts of revelation which produced the Church. Though the Church authorised the books which won a place in the New Testament, it did not derive its authority from the Church, but from the facts which it preserved. If. the Church as a community, preserving the gospel in its life and witness, did exercise any authority, it subjected itself to the authority of the New Testament as the accredited record of the authoritative facts of revelation, the authorised constitution of the Church. Such a selection and authorisation were surely within the providence of God. This follows from any real doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

      Authorisation should not be confused with authority. To authorise is not to confer authority. It is merely to recognise and endorse what s authoritative in itself.

      The acceptance of any kind of absolute authority in the Church through tradition, or the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the community commits us to an undue subjectivism. We can guard against this only by subjecting the Church to the measure of the facts to which the New Testament bears witness. History has shown us that when the Church assumes an authority in its own right, shut up within its own claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, the result is departure from primary New Testament teaching, confusion, and division. This has been the way to doctrines of baptismal regeneration, infant sprinkling, penance, purgatory, transubstantiation, mass, priestcraft, papal infallibility, the assumption of the virgin Mary and the like

      The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church is integral to our faith, but it Is guidance which must be tested by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit in the community will not contradict

the Holy Spirit who bears witness through the Scriptures. New facts of revelation will not be given by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. A distinction must be made between revelation and illumination. The guidance of the Spirit will give us illumination whereby we shall gain deeper insights into the revelation, and better application of the revelation to current life. Things we had missed come to light, and things we had misunderstood are truly shown to us. We are corrected and led forward by new light that breaks from the word. We receive progressive illumination, not new facts of revelation.

      Having said this, what can be said for the place of the tradition of the Church as we wrestle with the problem of authority? We cannot over-emphasise the point that when we speak of the tradition of the Church it is the tradition of the whole church which is meant, not the tradition of any denomination. Denominations are commonly spoken of as churches and when any "church" assumes that its tradition is the tradition of the Church we see denominationalism at its worst.

      While the Church must be subject to the New Testament, if we are to escape the anarchy of perverse individualism, we do well to recognise that it is the New Testament as set down in the midst of a living community that provides our authority. While the absolute is found in the New Testament itself, we shall be helped to find an immediate, relative, working authority in the whole Christian community's interpretation of the New Testament as helped by the tradition of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Problem of Interpretation.

      When we establish an authority and settle on a common ground of appeal there is no guarantee of unity because we are still faced with the problem of interpretation. Many Christians find their final authority in the witness of the Scriptures, but for all that they are divided into different groups and denominations. We have to recognise that one's interpretation of any given fact, proposition, principle or commandment is the point of authority for him. Each can only obey according to his understanding. He can do no other. There is no escape from interpretation and in the interest of unity the problem has to be faced. Within the tradition of Churches of Christ an attempt has been made to meet this problem in three complementary ways.

Unity Upon Facts.

      One suggested way of meeting it is to accept facts without interpretation.

      Following the lead of Alexander Campbell, a fact is understood as something done or said. This position was clearly stated by him

      "'Fact' means something done. The term 'deed', so common in the reign of James 1, is equivalent to our term 'fact.'" "All revealed religion is based upon facts. Testimony has respect to facts only; and that testimony may be credible, it must be confirmed. . . . By 'facts' we always mean something said or done. The works of God and the words of God, or the things done or spoken by God, are those facts which are laid down and exhibited in the Bible as the foundation of all faith, hope, love, piety and humanity." ("Christian System", pp. 90 and 96)

      Where there is an act clearly described or a clear statement given by the Scripture we have a fact. For instance, "Christ died" is a clear description of an act, an event, something done. This is a fact. The remaining part of the sentence, "For our sins," is a clear statement of Scripture interpreting what was done. Here is something said. This also is a fact within the terms of our definition.

      In this clear testimony we have the fact of the atonement.

      It should be observed that a clearly established Scriptural interpretation or "theory" of something done is regarded as a fact. It Is only when interpretations and theories go beyond clearly established Scriptural "theories" that we are in the realm of human theories and opinions.

      On the basis of Scriptural facts we may be united. If we go beyond clear, Scriptural testimony we find ourselves divided by human interpretations and theories. Therefore, let us unite on the facts.

      There is no question about the measure of service rendered by such a suggestion as this, but it does not wholly meet the case.

      The human mind is ever asking questions--often questions beyond its own power to answer. It pursues meanings to the bitter end. Man is not content to accept facts without pressing for an answer on every possible meaning of every fact. There is also the problem of establishing satisfactorily for all minds all essential Scriptural facts. Then the various facts have to be pieced together into a coherent whole. Finally, the facts have to be applied to life situations. All this means there is room for difference and division beyond the area of unity upon clearly established facts.

      Another attempt to meet the problem of differing interpretations is the suggestion of . . .

A Universal Understanding.

      Where there are difficulties of interpretation, while accepting the ultimate authority of the Scriptures, let us seek an immediate authority in the common understanding of the Scripture as we find such throughout the Christian age and world.

      The question raised on a point at issue is whether there has been a consensus of judgment among Christians down through the Christian era and is there a consensus of judgment among Christians today? This is not a popular mind, but the mind of consecrated, qualified scholarship. If there be such, let it be our guide. Let the authoritative position of a united body be determined by this universal understanding or common mind.

      The application of this principle may be illustrated in relation to the thorny question of baptism. Is there a common mind to be found amid all the traditional differences on this ordinance? It seems clear that there is. All down the line and all through the churches today the validity of the immersion of believers into Christ unto the remission of sins is accepted. Here is a universal understanding upon which we may be united. The acceptance of alternatives leads us into particulars and division.

      We have to recognise that the common mind is not necessarily a unanimous mind. It is representative rather than unanimous. It is also important to recognise that the authority of the common mind is only immediate and relative. It is not an absolute. History furnishes us with ample illustrations of the common mind being wrong. At any particular time the individual or the minority may be right. The common mind may change. But at any particular moment in history we must accept the guidance of the common mind. The mind of the minority cannot serve as the immediate authority.

      The question may be raised as to what is the difference between accepting the authority of the common mind and accepting the authority of the Church. The difference is quite apparent if the authority of the Church be accepted as an absolute--an alternative to the Scriptures. The common mind is always based upon and subject to the Scriptures. It is never in any sense an addition or an alternative. It is a relative tied to an absolute. But in so far as we accept the Church as the bearer of an authoritative interpretation, the common mind is the expression of the interpretative tradition within the Church.

      Our divisions destroy the interpretative function of the Church. In isolation and division from one another we miss truth and our vision is distorted. It is the recognition of this fact that leads to the ecumenical emphasis upon ecumenical conversation, confrontation, and consultation. We have to sit down together to discover truth. A significant statement is found in the preface to "Biblical Authority for Today." "Every confession looks at the Bible from the point of view of its own tradition or customary ways of interpretation. Were it not so, there would be no need for ecumenical Bible study at all. Even the

"detached" or "disinterested" standpoint of liberal scholarship turns out, upon examination, to be but another "tradition." The fact is that the believing attitude of Christians towards the Bible and its message is always mediated to them by the particular church or community from which they have received it. . . . But . . . It has been our experience--and one for which we are profoundly grateful to God--that, when an ecumenical group sits down with the Bible open before it at a specific passage, there emerges a common agreement concerning what the Holy Spirit wills to speak through this Scripture.

      When the passage has been expounded, and all have made their contributions, there arises a broad and illuminating understanding about its meaning and relevance for us today." ("Richardson and Schweitzer", pp. 11-13)

      However, we are still faced with the fact that there are matters on which there is no common mind, and there is a persisting minority even where there is a common or majority mind. Another step has to be taken in the attempt to meet the problem of interpretation. This brings us to the principle of liberty which is one of the very important parts of the witness of Churches of Christ and will be the subject of the next chapter.

      While the final authority is God as revealed in Christ, the mediation of the mind and will of Christ brings various factors into authority as it is brought down to earth. The primary witness to the facts of revelation is the Scriptures. A finality is found there in the coherent whole that centres in Christ.

      But in the analysis and testing of this witness, and in the interpretation and application of the Scriptures, man's reason and valuing sense, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church giving us the tradition of the Church, all come into operation. While the final authority is found in the witness of the Scriptures to the Absolute, these other factors play their part as relative elements in the doctrine of authority. As Christ is the keystone in the coherent whole of the Scriptures, the New Testament is the keystone in the coherent whole of the Scriptures, the tradition of the Church, rational judgment, and valuing sense.

      One of the remarkable things in the world is individuality. While there are something like three thousand million people on our globe there are no two who are absolutely identical. There are resemblances, but all finger prints and faces are different. What is true physically is also true spiritually and mentally. People do not and will not think exactly alike. Understandings, judgments, opinions, theories, and applications differ. God must have meant it to be this way.

      Individuality, however, does not lead necessarily to individualism because of the deep, underlying resemblances which make community possible for man. In a true community there is at once a sinking of individuality and a preservation of it. The sinking of individuality saves from individualism, while the preservation of individuality saves from totalitarianism. The unity of true community does not require uniformity. Unity is preserved by loyalty to a common foundation and purpose. The unity of the Church as a community is maintained by loyalty to a common faith and purpose which are centred in Christ.

      In any community there is always tension between uniformity and individuality, and unity depends upon a neat balance between these two. Individuality may constitute a threat to unity. One way of preserving unity is to require all to conform to one pattern of thought and behaviour, but this is against nature and the ideal of true community; it is the way of totalitarianism. The other way of preserving unity is to allow an area of liberty in which there is scope for individuality.

      The application of the principle of liberty is the democratic way of preserving unity in community without uniformity. From the beginning Churches of Christ have emphasised the principle of liberty as an important part of their witness. It is a principle which calls for courage and spiritual maturity. Fear and smallness of mental and spiritual stature always constitute a threat to the application of this principle.

      If the principle of liberty is to preserve unity the area of liberty must be defined. If we do not agree on this area the principle of liberty will cause division rather than preserve unity. Liberty cannot mean liberty in all things. Without limits it means licence. No true doctrine of liberty envisages lawlessness. Just as there are limits on social liberty in that we cannot kill and steal, there are limits on religious liberty within the Christian community. If we are to avoid anarchy and misunderstanding, the area of liberty must be clearly defined. This is a problem for all communities that boast the principle of liberty. Various watchwords and distinctions indicate the attempt among Churches of Christ to define the area and point the way.

Essentials and Non-Essentials.

      We have caught up and made use of the old dictum: "In things essential, unity; in things non essential, liberty; in all things, charity." This is helpful as a general guide but it always leaves open the question as to what is essential and what is non-essential.

      Is there to be liberty on this point? A difference as to what are essentials and what non essentials is likely to cause division. Hence the simple distinction between essentials and non-essentials is not sufficient in itself to define the area of liberty.

      It has been common in the history of Churches of Christ for a distinction to be made between facts and theories, with, at least, a suggestion that facts are essentials while theories are nonessentials. Whatever the value of this distinction there always remains some question as to where the line can be drawn between essential facts and non essential theories.

      We have already noted the definition of a fact as something done or said. Where we have a clear Scriptural description of an act or event, or a clear Scriptural statement we have a fact. If we may call up the illustration previously used, "Christ died for our sins," we see a Scriptural description of something done, and a clear statement interpreting the event. The Scriptural interpretation or "theory" is a fact. Any Scriptural "theory" is a fact. Now the question arises, how did Christ die for our sins? What is the Scriptural theory of the atonement? If this can be established, the "how" of the atonement becomes a fact. There are those who are quite sure of a Scriptural theory of the atonement. To them, such a theory is a fact. But different theories of the atonement are derived from the Scriptures. Others are not convinced that a clear Scriptural theory is given Hence the line between fact and theory becomes debatable and

uncertain Therefore, the distinction between fact and theory is not sufficient in itself to define the area of liberty.

      A further attempt to define the area of liberty is found in the distinction between

Faith and Opinion.

      It has been common among us to regard opinion as consisting in matters which are of no consequence. This, however, throws us back on the distinction between essentials and non essentials. What are things of no consequence? Opinions differ on this point. We need to go deeper.

      Some lead is given to us in the suggestion that there can be no liberty regarding matters connected with salvation or things clearly commanded.

      Opinion relates to matters not clearly established as facts, or facts not connected with salvation, or facts not given by commandment.

      Faith consists of clearly established facts connected with salvation and/or coming to us under commandment. The fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is a fact clearly testified by Scripture as connected with our salvation, and is the centre of the faith commanded. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." As Alexander Campbell put it: "The belief of one fact, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation. . . . The one fact is expressed in a single proposition--that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah." ("Christian System", p. 101) In the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins," we have repentance and baptism presented as facts under commandment connected with salvation. Paul connects faith and confession of Jesus as the risen Lord with salvation: "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)

      Here are clearly established facts definitely connected with salvation and coming to us under commandment. These are matters of faith concerning which there can be no liberty.

      One illustration will suffice of a clearly established fact, not connected with salvation but coming to us under a commandment. This is the case of our Lord's words regarding His Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:24) Concerning any such fact coming to us under a commandment there can be no liberty.

      This brings us to the conclusion that essentials are facts in which the faith consists, that is, facts connected with salvation and facts coming to us under commandment. Non essentials are matters not

clearly established as facts, and facts not connected with salvation, and facts not coming to us under commandment. Where there is a clearly established principle or precedent this has the force of a commandment and there can be no liberty to take any course which is manifestly against the principle or precedent. In the complexity of life differences may arise about the exact application of a principle or precedent. Here is a field in which liberty must apply. With this understanding we can say: "In things essential, unity; in things non. essential, liberty."

      Having attempted to define the area of liberty we turn to the task of describing or illustrating the area.

      On various matters there is simply no common mind. This points to uncertainty in the evidence. There is no clearly established fact, so there is room for theories and opinions. Both on these questions and on others, where facts are reasonably established, there is the further point that they are not connected with salvation and do not come to us under any commandment.

      Particular items in this area of liberty are: dates, authorship, and the nature of biblical books; millennial theories; theories relating to immortality and the destiny of the wicked; methods of worship; moral questions such as the Christian's attitude to war; social and economic questions; matters of methods of evangelism and organisation of Christian work.

      What can we say of miracles, the resurrection, theories of inspiration and theories of the atonement? The facts of miracles, including the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection, the atonement, and inspiration, are clearly established. Further, the facts of the resurrection and the atonement are connected with salvation. This makes these latter facts essentials of the faith. They are inextricably bound up with our faith in Christ--our Creed. But the question of the kind of body with which Christ came forth from the grave is one on which there is room for differences of opinion. The same is true concerning theories of the atonement. The fact of the atonement is clearly established in the combined statement: "Christ died for our sins, and rose for our justification." When the question of how Christ died for our sins is raised we move into the realm of theories beyond any clearly established Scriptural theory. Thought has varied from age to age and from one thinker to another. Through all the varying thought, what is common to all is the fact of Christ's Saviourhood both in thought and experience. Christ has saved and saves, not because of one's theory of the atonement, but, maybe, in spite of it. In these areas of theories there is surely room for liberty.

      While the facts of inspiration and miracles are clearly established, taught and believed, we must note that there is no commandment relating to these and they are not connected with salvation. The Scriptures make claim to inspiration but there is no overall statement as to how inspiration takes place. The means of communication in some particular cases is indicated, but this leaves untouched the great mass of material. This leaves us in the realm of human theory and ecclesiastical dogma. Such matters cannot be given creedal status.

      Our emphasis on "No creed but Christ" has carried with it the principle of liberty. Not that liberty of creed means that we may believe anything or nothing. We have tried to give point to the truth that our faith is Christ-centred. It is essentially a response to a Person. Of course there can be no escaping the doctrine of the Person, but we have avoided metaphysical questions and theological definitions concerning Him as well as other doctrines and theories which enter into the system of Christian faith. Hence we do not make such things as miracles, inspiration, theories of the atonement, the nature of Christ's resurrection body, and the like, touchstones of the faith. These are not made articles of a creed. They are not included in the creedal question and confession as a test of fellowship. We simply ask the question: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?" and we accept that confession as the only faith essential to fellowship.

      Within the area of liberty there will be a gradation of importance. Matters within this area will range from the important to the inconsequential. Some things that are not classed as essentials in the sense that they are not parts of the creed and not made tests of fellowship, may yet be regarded as important items of real concern and common acceptance.

      The principle of liberty demands liberty of expression. No unity is safe that is built on suppression. Only the practice of liberty of expression can save us from the disturbing shock of different points of view.

      We have traditionally placed a restriction on liberty of expression, saying that matters of theory and opinion should be held privately. In pulpit and press only those things should be expressed that are most surely believed by all.

      It is true that there are opinions which one need not and would not want to preach or publicise, but what if one develops an idea which is to him a burning conviction of truth? Should he not be free to express it without fear or prejudice?

      Was not this the very thing that the pioneers did? They presented original ideas over against what was most surely believed and accepted. If it be argued that they were justified because they passed from tradition to truth, the argument carries the assumption that we now possess all the truth rather than that we are still seekers after truth. Such liberty of expression would undoubtedly mean the presentation of some error. In spite of our plea for the preaching only of universals, originality and individuality have asserted themselves and theories of all kinds have been preached and publicised among us. It seems that we can only rely on truth to preserve itself in a field where originality serves progress, and liberty serves unity.

      Of course there can be no departure from the principle that no opinions or theories should be imposed on others. All expressions of liberty should be subject to discretion, and should be expressions of positive faith and creative purpose.

      Authority standing alone is no guarantee of unity. Many people who walk in different ways, and organise themselves in different bodies all own the authority of the New Testament.

      A unity based on authority alone can only be a totalitarianism in which there is no liberty of thought, expression, and life. This will not work. There are always rebellions and secessions. Initiative cannot be restrained. Authoritarian unity may provide a fine logical ideal, but it does not meet the life situation.

      On the other hand, liberty without authority means licence and anarchy. It will not produce unity.

      Authority and liberty are antitheses. Their synthesis involves a tension. It is like walking a tight rope. We find it easy to fall one way or the other. The art is to maintain the tension. It is the genius of Churches of Christ to maintain the balance and preserve the tension of authority and liberty, with authority saving us from divisive humanism and anarchy, and liberty saving us from a rigid totalitarianism which is a yoke that many refuse to bear.

The Ecclesia.

      With a usage that can be traced back to Homeric literature, the word ecclesia referred to an assembly summoned for some special purpose, and it was applied to assemblies held in various cities. In Athens it applied particularly to the political Assembly, which was made up of citizens who were summoned to conduct the business of the City-State. It met regularly, but could also be called for special purposes. The word also came to apply to any gathering of people. In Acts 19:32 it is used of a tumultuous crowd, and in the thirty-ninth verse, the same word is used by the town clerk in referring to a lawful or ordinary assembly.

      The Septuagint in its translation of the Old Testament into Greek uses the word ecclesia to apply to the congregation of Israel. Instances of this word, which is translated into the English as "assembly" or "congregation," are found in Deut. 31:30; Judges 21:8; I Chron. 29:1, and in many other references. We find this usage in the New Testament, where Stephen refers to the "ecclesia in the wilderness." (Acts 7:38) Ecclesia is here rendered as "church" or "congregation." The latter is probably the sense in which it is used. As in Acts 19, the context suggests the meaning.

      Related to a Greek verb meaning "to call out" or "summon forth," ecclesia means "a called out community." It is in this sense that it is translated as "church." The church is the community of the called, or of those who have responded to the call of God.

      It is common in Christian circles to speak of the church in the Old Testament, and some support is taken from the passage in Acts 7:38, though it is at least doubtful whether ecclesia should be translated as "church" in this context.

      Churches of Christ have been hesitant about this reference to the church in the Old Testament, and think that the doctrine can be held only with qualification. Some kind of continuity should be recognised. There was an elect community from the beginning. That is, a community which consisted of those who heard the call of God

and made the response of faith. Israel was such a community, and the phrase "Israel of God" bears witness to that. Paul makes it clear that there was an Israel of faith which succeeded national Israel. This means that the church as a community of the faithful is continuous with the people of God of all generations. In a general sense the term ecclesia could be applied to God's elect throughout history.

      We should not lose sight of this continuity, but that should not blind us to the radical discontinuity between the old community and the new.

The Israel of God.

      This image of the Church calls to mind the Old Israel and the New Israel which, though they are not Biblical phrases, are Biblical ideas.

      Old Israel was the covenant nation called to the privilege and responsibility of faith and mission. cf. Gen. 12:1-3;17:1-10.

      The New Israel consists of the spiritual heirs of Abraham. "They which be of faith, the same are the sons of Abraham." (Gal. 3:7)

      The God of Israel is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ the Spirit which moved upon the face of the waters and inspired holy men of old is the Spirit which ushered in a new dispensation on the day of Pentecost; and the Messiah expected by the Jews is the Christ confessed by Peter. The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. In Him there was fulfilment of the law and the prophets. The new branches grafted in have their footage in the olive tree of the past; the new temple and the new covenant have an underlying link with the temple idea and the covenant principle. The two commandments on which hung all the law and the prophets are still central in the Christian moral ideal. All this bears witness to a continuity between the Old Israel and the New Israel.

      However, failure in the covenant people required the emergence of something radically new. While the covenant relationship remains there is a new covenant. cf. Jer. 31:31 and Heb. 8:8-13. Christ said: "I will build my church." He gave Himself for the Church; it is His bride or the Lamb's wife. He is the chief cornerstone of the Church, the Head of the Church; it is His body built upon the truth confessed by Peter. cf. Matt. 16:16; Eph. 5:22-23, 25-27; Rev. 21:9; I Cor. 3:11; I Peter 2:6.

      While there was personal relationship with God it was characteristic of the old covenant that it was with a nation and members were primarily born into the covenant relationship and others were added to the covenant people as proselytes. Entrance to the new covenant is by re-birth. cf. John 3:3-5. Its gospel, ordinances, spirit and life are new. As the community under this new covenant the Church is a new creation.

      All this bears witness to the discontinuity between the Old Israel and the New Israel. The Church as a new household of faith, built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone is as radically new as the One who said: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, but I say unto you . . ." (Matt. 5)

The Fellowship of the Spirit.

      It is said of the early believers that they continued in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship. cf. Acts 2:42. This fellowship was produced by the promised gift of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. cf. Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4; 38-39. The New Testament word for fellowship, "koinonia", means sharing in a gift, especially the gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christ dwells in the Church through His Spirit making it the fellowship of the Spirit in which there is depth and reality in sharing beyond a mere happy "get-together."

      This fellowship is without frontiers. Natural boundaries such as language and race, culture and class and sex are not barriers. Cf. Acts 2:6; 10:34-35; Gal.3:28; Col. 3:11; Eph. 2:11-22.

      The concept of the Church as a world body is in terms of fellowship rather than in terms of an organisation.

The Body of Christ.

      One of the major images of the Church is Paul's image of it as the body of Christ. Cf. Eph. 1:23; 4:12; 5:30; Col. 1:18-24; I Cor. 12:12-13, 27.

      From this description of the Church some have spoken of it as the continuation of the Incarnation. This appears to us to be taking the image too far and pressing it too literally. Pressed to an extreme this line of thought could lead to a doctrine of an infallible Church, a doctrine which has no support in the history of the Church. The Incarnation was a unique event with a beginning and an ending in history. The dwelling of Christ in human hearts and in the Church is an image of the unique events.

      We find in the New Testament that "body" and "temple" are somewhat identical terms. Our Lord referred to His body as a temple. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . He spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:19-21). Paul said: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?" cf. I Cor. 6:19 and 3:16-17. With this understanding we can use the figures of body and temple interchangeably in different contexts. In

the days of His flesh Christ was the temple of God. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." (II Cor. 5:19) The unique event of the Incarnation was completed in His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension. In this He fulfilled His mission of redemption and reconciliation. The old temple with all its limitations was superseded by Him as the Temple of God and His work gave rise to a new temple or body which succeeded the body of the Incarnation. The Church is this new body indwelt by the living Christ. In this, His body, He is identified with man and man enters into a new life of growth in Him who is the Head of the body.

      The image of the Church as the body of Christ gives point to the visible nature of the Church. If we speak of the New Testament Church we cannot escape the fact that the Church presented in the New Testament is something visible. While there is an invisible aspect of the Church in that God alone knows those who are truly His, the Church that exists and operates in history, endeavouring to continue Christ's ministry and to fulfil His mission is visible. Its ordinances, its worship, its life, service and witness are all visible. To turn from a visible church that need not be true and to emphasize a true church that need not be visible may be a way of escape from reality.

      As the body of Christ the Church is at once universal and local. The word ecclesia is used one hundred and fifteen times in the New Testament, and in almost all cases it refers to the Church, either local or universal. In twenty-seven instances it is definitely used of the Church universal. The latter is obviously in mind in such passages as Matt. 16:18; I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 1:22; and Phil. 3:6. As well as this use of ecclesia in the universal sense there are, as we have seen, such phrases as "body of Christ," "the Israel of God," "the church of the firstborn." These phrases all picture a community which embraces all people, in which there is "neither Jew nor Greek, . . . neither bond nor free. . . . neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28) and which covers all space and time.

      It is likely that local Christian communities lived somewhat apart i,, the early stages, but there was a force which drew them together and developed the conception of the universal Church. Their missionary commission gave them the vision of a world-wide religion. They maintained contact through correspondence and visits. Letters of commendation were necessary to transfer from one local community to another. Persecution served to increase the sense of solidarity. So the ecumenical concept of the Church as presented in the New Testament took root in the historical development of the Church. In this sense there is the one universal church but it is clear that in the

New Testament ecclesia was also applied to a local community. In Acts 11:22 and 15:43, 22, the Christian community at Jerusalem is referred to as the church. The same is true of the community at Antioch (14:27; 15:3) and of the various communities in the centres visited by Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor. (Acts 14:23) The plural, "ecclesiai", is used of "the churches of Galatia," (Gal. 1:2) "the churches of Macedonia," (2 Cor. 8:1) and "the churches of God which are in Judea." (l Thess. 3:14)

      In these cases "churches" must apply to the various local communities. House communities are referred to as "churches." (Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philn. 2) It is possible, of course, that the group meeting in a house was not fully organised as a church, but was part of a wider community, an ecclesia within an ecclesia, the whole community being the church of the locality which met in various meeting places. Various historians claim that the early Christians met in private houses especially for the Lord's Supper. In centres like Jerusalem, where there was evidently a fairly large Christian community, the church of the locality would meet in a number of places.

      The charter for the full right of a local congregation as a church is found in the promise of our Lord: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20)

      We may say that the universal and local expressions of the body of Christ are kept in balance by regarding the local church as an outcrop of the one universal church in a particular locality. Such a phrase as "the church of God which is at Corinth" (I Cor. 1:2) may be taken to suggest this.

A Responsible Community.

      The Athenian Ecclesia was made up of citizens who were summoned to conduct the business of the City-State. In true democratic style the citizens had the right to speak and vote. Among the Greeks Ecclesia implied that the assembled members constituted a self-governing body.

      It is evident that the Apostles, especially Paul, exercised an oversight over the early churches, but it was not an overlordship, for there is ample evidence of democratic procedure.

      When the Hellenists complained that the Hebrew widows were being favoured in social service, "the twelve summoned the body of the disciples" and suggested that they select seven men of good repute to attend to the daily distribution. "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose. . . ." (Acts 6:1-6) The Apostles gave a lead, but the whole community decided and acted.

      In Acts 11:1 we read that lithe apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the Word of God." Then, in the twenty-second verse, we are told that when "tidings of these things came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem. . . . they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as fares Antioch."

      When trouble arose concerning the relation of the Jewish law to the gospel, Paul and Barnabas, and some others, went from Antioch to Jerusalem to confer about the matter. On arrival "they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders." (Acts 15:4) Following their report some dissented from the practice of receiving Gentiles without their passing through the processes of the law whereupon a meeting was called to discuss the whole matter. Peter gave evidence and Paul and Barnabas told their story, after which James expressed his judgment. "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." (Acts 15:22, 25, 28)

      Paul told the Corinthians he was sending to them, with Titus, "the brother whose praise . . . is spread throughout all the churches," and he then goes on to say that "he was also appointed by the churches to travel with us." (2Cor. 8:19) In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul tells them that when he arrived he would send "whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters . . . to bring your gift unto Jerusalem." (I Cor. 16:3) Disciplinary powers were committed to the church at Corinth by Paul. (I Cor. 5)

      It is apparent that there was close relationship between the churches at Antioch and Jerusalem. Churches in Macedonia, Corinth, and other places contributed to the collection organised by Paul for the poor in Jerusalem. Accredited messengers were sent out by the churches to supervise the collection. When the money was collected Paul made arrangements to have it taken to Jerusalem by accredited representatives. The conference at Jerusalem concerning the relation of the Jewish law to the gospel was a co-operative consultation and the decisions were sent to the various churches. (Acts 15:22-16:4)

      In view of this evidence and commonsense experience, Churches of Christ have sought to hold congregationalism and co-operation in balance. At an early stage Alexander Campbell criticised the abuses of co-operation but not its uses. He gave a lead by championing the principle of co-operation. This significant statement appears among his writings: "It is competent to 'the church of Christ' to consult and co-operate with all the individual communities called churches of Christ, which enter into her own constituency, in whatever state, nation, or empire, they may be found, in each and every matter

beyond their own individual duties to themselves and their localities. These are matters which we regard as conceded by all our brethren, and, therefore, we offer no argument in support of them." (Cf. "The Disciples of Christ", Garrison & De Groot, p. 353)

      It is in line with the foregoing principles that Churches of Christ hold regular conferences and appoint conference committees to care for co-operative enterprises. In keeping with the congregational principles these committees may act in an advisory capacity only, and make recommendations to a local congregation without exercising any legislative power. The conference may legislate only on such matters as are voluntarily agreed upon as co-operative undertakings such as missions, certain building programmes, and the authorisation of ministers.

      The great principle of congregationalism appears to be self determination in local enterprise. However, congregationalism should not be confused with absolute independency, much less with irresponsible individualism. As no man lives to himself so no local congregation lives to itself. The Church as a whole is a responsible community. The whole community is responsible to each part and each member, and each member and each part is responsible to the whole community. If brotherhood means anything it means this. As in a true community there is at once a preservation of individuality and a sinking of it, so in the community of churches or congregations there is a preservation of the individuality of the local congregations and a sinking of individuality in the interests of the whole community. The whole community never overrides the local community and the latter never ignores the former, the congregation being conditioned by the consideration of the good of the whole community and the latter being conditioned by the rights of the congregation. There is a tension that must be maintained. Experience shows that it is easy to swing to either extreme of an irresponsible individualism or an overbearing authoritarianism.

      We believe that the New Testament shows that the Church of Apostolic times was not a hierarchy but a fellowship in which, at all levels, the whole community shared the responsibility of decision making. As a responsible community the Church has been well described as a brotherly Christocracy.

A Community in Mission.

      The life and mission of the Church cannot be separated. Its life is in mission. It has been well said that the only true picture of the Church is a moving picture.

      The Church is a community under commission. The risen Lord said: "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you:" (John 20:21)

      "Ye shall be witnesses unto me;" (Acts 1:8) "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

      A true note was struck in the preparatory report for the first assembly of the World Council of Churches at Amsterdam when it was declared that evangelism is the lifeblood of the Church. As the life and health of a body depend upon a vigorous bloodstream so the inner health and outer growth of the Church depend on evangelism.

      The report on evangelism adopted by the Evanston Assembly of the World Council of Churches included three points concerning the end of evangelism. Firstly, it is to bring "persons to Christ as Saviour and Lord that they may share in His eternal life. Here is the heart of the matter. There must be personal encounter with Christ. It is not enough to present Him merely as an example to follow. The gospel proclaims a living Christ. Just to remain with Him is the mark of Christian experience . . . so to bring men to meet Him is the purpose of all evangelism. For on his relationship to God in Christ depends the eternal destiny of every man." Secondly, it is to "bring people into the full life of the Church as expressed in a local congregation, for an isolated Christian, if such were possible, would be in a tragic state." Thirdly, it is to "transform the groupings and patterns of society in which men and women are involved, to the end that human institutions and structures may more nearly conform to the divine intention." ("The Evanston Report", p. 101)

      In discussing the dimension of evangelism the same report gave a healthy lead when it declared that "evangelism is no specialised or separable or periodic activity, but is rather a dimension of the total activity of the Church. Everything the Church does is of evangelising significance." (p. 100)

      At the ecumenical level a continuing emphasis is found in the minutes of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches meeting in August, 1969. "The proclamation of the gospel is always the calling of the Church. . . . The call to conversion remains central to the mission, enabling us to participate joyfully in God's purpose as He revealed it in Jesus Christ. . . . Christ our Saviour remains the same the only way to the Father."

      An underlying motive in all its activity should be the evangelistic purpose of confronting men with Christ as Saviour and Lord.

      The Church is not an end in itself, but an agency for promoting the Kingdom of God.

      As a community of new life in Christ the Church is a believing, worshipping, witnessing and serving community. While it undoubtedly has benefits for its members it is not a club which exists for its members but it exists for outreach and involvement in the world.

A United Community

      Following Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, our Lord said: "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18) He did not say "churches." The New Testament uses the plural, "churches," only in the congregational sense, never in the denominational sense. Our Lord spoke of one flock with one shepherd. Cf. John 10:16. It is described as His body. There can no more be two or more bodies than two or more Christs. He prayed for the realisation of one community when He prayed, "That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:21)

      Paul condemned division at the local level as being due to spiritual immaturity. cf. I Cor. 3. If division among Christians is wrong in the local church it is wrong at any level. What is wrong in principle is wrong both locally and universally. In harmony with our Lord Paul said, "There is one body." cf. Eph. 4:4. It is only as the Church is one and obviously one that it demonstrates the gospel of reconciliation which it preaches.

      As Thomas Campbell put it in his "Declaration and Address" of 1809, "The church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be truly and properly called Christians."

      All that has been said about the Church is generally accepted by all Christians. It has the stamp of catholicity and is not peculiar to Churches of Christ but emphases upon a gathered community, a free church in a free State, a fellowship of believers in which there is congregational autonomy with co-operation at all levels, the involvement of all members in mission, and a concern about the ideal of the unity of all Christians in one Church are convictions and emphases that stand out in varying degrees in the tradition of Churches of Christ.

      The whole membership of the Church is committed to mission and ministry. Along with other Christians, Churches of Christ have accepted the priesthood of the whole Church as suggested in I Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:3-6, and have interpreted this as meaning that each member of the church is a priest. The Church is a fellowship of priests and not a community divided into priests and not priests. In the light of this Petrine passage which includes the description of the Christian community as the people (laos) of God no distinction is made in the Church as between laity and clergy. Churches of Christ have tried unsuccessfully to avoid the use of such terms as "laity" or "laymen."

      There is really no difficulty if "layman" is understood as a relative term as illustrated by the fact that in the field of medicine the carpenter is a layman in relation to the doctor while in the field of carpentry the doctor is a layman in relation to the carpenter. In any field the untrained person is a layman as compared with one who is trained though in the Church as in other areas there are people with charisma irrespective of training and there are people with training who have no charisma. This means that if opportunities are open in the Church there are sometimes untrained people (laymen) who render a ministry with more ability than some who are trained.

The Validity of a Special Ministry

      While the whole membership of the Church is responsible for ministry we recognise the need of a specialised, functional ministry within the total ministry of the Church.

      The selection of the twelve to be with Him and to be sent forth as apostles gives precedent for a specialised ministry, even though we must emphasise that the Apostles were in a unique position. They were intimate eyewitnesses who were instructed and commissioned in an immediate way by Christ. No others in their day stood in their position. None in later days can possibly stand in their position as primary witnesses to the events of Christ's life and His teaching, and

as interpreters of Christ under the inspiration of the Spirit. This gave them a moral and spiritual authority in the first century Church. When they passed on, that authority was vested in the apostolic tradition. The tradition as preserved in the New Testament provided an apostolic succession. The whole Church is the custodian of the authoritative tradition, and in general succeeds to the ministry which Christ first committed to the Apostles.

      In the New Testament we find the principle of specialisation and the existence of different servants who are classified according to function. At Jerusalem the twelve advised the multitude of disciples to look out seven men to administer benevolence while they said of themselves, "We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4) Paul says: "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues." (I Cor. 12:28) In Ephesians he wrote: "He gave some, apostles, and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry." (Eph. 4:11-12) Paul uses phrases in relation to himself and others such as "ministry of the saints," "the ministry of reconciliation," "that the ministry be not blamed," "the ministry thou hast received," "make full proof of thy ministry," "minister of God to thee," "a faithful minister of the Lord," "minister of God," "a good minister of Christ." While "minister" could be used in these phrases in the general sense of a servant, it appears to be used of those engaged in a specialised task.

      All this is in line with our Lord's selection of seventy and sending them forth as messengers of His gospel, assuring them that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Paul cites this in justification of a specialised ministry. "Even so did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel." (l Cor. 9:14)

A Continuing Ministry Within the Church

      While there appears to be a variety of terminology used in the New Testament in relation to a specialised ministry and an indication of freedom in function, there is constancy in reference to a ministry of evangelism, teaching, pastoral help, oversight and administration. This ministry has found permanent expression in the life of the Church in the functions of elders or bishops, evangelists, and deacons. Alexander Campbell wrote: "The standing and immutable ministry of the Christian community is composed of Bishops, Deacons, and Evangelists. Of each of these there is but one order, though possessing great diversities of gifts. . . . Still the office is now, and ever was, the same." ("The Christian System", p. 60)

      In the New Testament it is apparent that "elder" and "bishop" are used interchangeably of the one officer. We find these two names used in one context in Titus 1:5-7. It is a reasonable suggestion that "elder" is used when referring to the person, and Bishop" when referring to his function of overseeing. In Acts 20:17 and 28 we have the two names again used in the same context. There is no suggestion of two offices. Paul, in greeting the Philippians addresses the saints, bishops, and deacons. (Phil. 1:1) If there had been a third class of officers, such as elders as distinct from bishops, it is hardly likely that he would have left them out in his greeting.

      From the available evidence in the New Testament it is clear that there was a plurality of elders or bishops in each local church. On their first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church. (Acts 14:23) Titus was instructed by Paul to appoint elders in every city. (Titus 1:5) A church in a city may have consisted of more than one congregation. This is quite probable in such places as Jerusalem and Ephesus. In such cases the elders in the church of the centre could have exercised jurisdiction over various congregations which made up the local church. However, neither a position of local co-operation nor a complete independency can be proved from the available evidence. What is clear in the New Testament is the principle of self-determination, and the oversight of a plurality of elders or bishops. There is no evidence of the oversight of one bishop. Later historians refer to Timothy and Titus as bishops, using "bishop" to mean a single overseer above elders, but this is a case of applying later terminology to New Testament officers. Neither one is called a bishop in the New Testament. They were both apostolic representatives, Paul having commissioned Timothy to work at Ephesus and Titus at Crete. It appears that James had some pre-eminence at Jerusalem, but Acts 15:22, with its emphasis on the whole community, is against any over-lordship. James is not called a bishop in the New Testament, and the application of the title to him is another case of applying later terminology to an early leader in the Church.

      We read that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church, (Acts 14:23) and Titus was instructed by Paul to appoint elders in every city. (Titus 1:5) There is no explicit evidence that elders were elected by the local church, but in view of the principle of responsibility of which we have evidence in the New Testament, it is not likely that elders would have been appointed by Paul and others without the consent of the church.

      The responsibility of the eldership is reflected in the qualifications of the elder which we find in I Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:59.

      In general terms a deacon is one who serves, especially one who serves at table. Paul greeted the deacons along with the bishops at Philippi. (Phil. 1:1) The qualifications of a deacon are set down in I Tim. 3:8-13. They are generally regarded as responsible for what may be called the temporalities of the Church, though in fact, they may render a spiritual ministry as well. In Acts 6 we have reference to seven who were selected to "serve tables," but they are not expressly called deacons.

      It appears that evangelists in the early Church were itinerant, but the specialisation was not rigid. Stephen and Philip, members of the seven chosen to "serve tables," served as evangelists. (Acts 7 & 8) Timothy who was commissioned to organise the church at Ephesus is also exhorted to do the work of an evangelist. (I Tim. 4:5)

      The total responsibility of the ministry is to evangelise, teach, exercise pastoral oversight, and organise and guide the worship and life of the Church. An evangelist will declare the evangel. Elders will teach, oversee, and shepherd. (I Tim. 3:2-4; 5:17, Titus 1:9; I Peter 5:2) Some will excel and specialise in one or other of these functions. Others will combine the duties of the elder, deacon and evangelist. Some will be called to qualify in a special way and live by the gospel, fulfilling the duties of evangelising, teaching, shepherding, organising and guiding the worship and life of the Church.

      While making a theoretical distinction between elders and deacons Churches of Christ, in Australia at least, have not been at all exact in practice. They have often been situational and functional. That is, they have acted according to the situation and have been concerned about function rather than office. In some cases no elders have been elected to operate in a local church. Quite often elected elders do much that may be regarded as the function of deacons and it is equally true that elected deacons often do much that would be regarded as the responsibility of elders. The minister is regarded as an elder in virtue of his ministry and quite often he is the only one who really functions as an elder. Concern about the mission of the Church and practicality have been determinative rather than exactness of office. Restoration of an exact New Testament pattern has not been taken seriously.

The Ordination of the Ministry.

      There is clear evidence in the New Testament that when people were called to fulfil certain specific functions in the Church they were set apart by fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands. Those who were chosen to "serve tables" were first selected by "the whole multitude" and then set before the Apostles who, when they had prayed, laid hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6) When Saul and Barnabas

were called of the Holy Spirit to undertake missionary work they were set apart for the work by fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands. (Acts 13:1-3) During their first missionary journey they established churches, and before they returned they appointed elders in every city. The appointment was made with prayer and fasting.

      The word which is translated "ordained," indicates the raising of hands. Some take this to suggest the raising of the hands of the people as in voting, but the context suggests that it was the hands of Paul and Barnabas which were raised. From this we conclude that the raising of their hands was the act of setting apart by the laying on of hands. (Acts 14:23) Timothy seems to have been set apart. by the laying on of hands of the elders and of Paul. (I Tim. 4:14; II Tim. 1:6) Whether the laying on of the hands of the elders and of Paul was concurrent or at different times we do not know.

      It was on the basis of such evidence that Alexander Campbell wrote: "All officers are to be formally and solemnly set apart by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery or eldership of the church. The whole community chooses--the seniors ordain. This is the apostolic tradition . . . It is immutable." ("Christian System", p. 64)

      We would emphasize that the New Testament precedent provides that all elders and deacons should be set aside for their tasks, and not merely those who are to live by the gospel.

      The public act of ordination of one who is to live by the gospel is simply a recognition on the part of the Church that one has been called to ministry. In this way it blesses him and authorises him to act as a representative of the community in a particular function. Ordination does not make one a minister. It is the call of Christ through the constraint of the Spirit that gives one his commission. He is sent to the Church, having, as Paul put it, "received his ministry of the Lord Jesus." His call, however, is "earthed" and made actual by the recognition and call of the Church.

      Ordination is setting apart for a task rather than an office. One is set aside for a task for as long as, in the judgment of the community, he performs it diligently and effectively. The office is not something that exists in the form of status and privilege, but in terms of responsibility and effectiveness in a task.

      Some think that the call by the community to a task, without any formal rite, is a sufficient ordination. It is on this ground that a formal ordination is not consistently practised among Churches of Christ. in the beginning formal ordination was completely rejected by the fierce democracy of the movement. Owing to the abuse of the rite in the historic development of priestcraft and ecclesiasticism it was regarded as inexpedient. On this ground, however, we should have to give up baptism and the Lord's Supper as inexpedient.

      It is competent for a local church to ordain a minister. Some would prefer this as the ruling practice. The local church, however, must act with a due sense of responsibility. A congregation cannot live to itself. In practice, the call of a minister is to the whole community of congregations and not to an isolated, local congregation. He will pass from one congregation to another in the course of his ministry. Proper responsibility to him as a minister can be discharged only by the whole community of congregations. In his local ministry he will commit the whole community morally and spiritually. All this emphasises the necessity of consultation and concurrence between the local community and the whole community in the calling, recognition, and authorisation of ministers.

      Within Churches of Christ one who is called or ordained as a minister is recognised as an elder and his or her function is to serve within the Christian community, as far as it is possible for one person, as an evangelist, a prophet, a pastor, a teacher and a leader in serving the Christian community and in serving on behalf of the Christian community and at the same time leading or equipping the Christian community for mission and ministry in the wider community. Ordination to this ministry is not the authorisation of an exclusive ministry. Apart from the government requirement that ministers shall be authorised to celebrate marriages there is nothing that is done by a minister within Churches of Christ that may not be done by any competent member of the Christian community. The emphasis is upon a functional ministry. The common distinguishing mark of a minister is that he or she is trained for ministry and lives by that ministry.

      The ministry of elders and deacons within Churches of Christ in Australia follows no exact pattern. Sometimes there are elders in a local congregation and sometimes not. In practice deacons often operate as elders and elders operate as deacons. Some reticence about the ministry of women as deacons, elders, leaders of worship and ministers lingers on. This is because Paul exhorted women to keep silence in the church. However, more and more Paul's comment about women keeping silence is interpreted as a situational expedient while an abiding principle is derived from his observation in Gal. 3:28 that in Christ there is neither male nor female.

      While the great majority of those who train for ministry become involved in ministries with local congregations and in missionary work, a number serve in departmental positions and in interdenominational ministries of various kinds, including the ministry of diverse chaplaincies.

      Churches of Christ have commonly preferred to speak of baptism and the Lord's Supper as ordinances, accepting an ordinance in its Biblical sense of a divine institution or commandment or rite. The description of these institutions as sacraments has not been favoured because of theological overtones, suggestive of magic which have been attached to this description. If, however, a sacrament is understood in the light of the historical background of the word as suggestive of an oath of allegiance to one's Lord and if the historic definition of a sacrament as a visible means of invisible grace be accepted then no real difficulty remains.

The One Baptism.

      In Eph. 4:5 Paul says there is one baptism but various baptisms are presented in the New Testament.

      Luke 12:50 bears witness to a baptism with suffering in that our Lord referred to His sacrificial suffering as a baptism which He had to undergo. On more than one occasion our Lord reminded His disciples that they may be called upon to share a baptism of suffering.

      All four Gospels and Acts refer to baptism with the Holy Spirit. This baptism is not commanded and is not an act of obedience either by the Church or by a disciple. It is an experience which follows a response to Christ and takes place wholly as an act of God

      Two views concerning baptism with the Holy Spirit have commonly obtained among Churches of Christ. One view is that it was a special event and experience as distinct from the gift of the Holy Spirit. It signified the new dispensation of the Spirit, confirmed the promise and sealed the gift particularly referred to in John 7.39 and chapters 14 to 16. cf. also Luke 11:13 and Acts 4:5. Having fulfilled its purpose it ceased to be. Another view is that baptism with the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the gift of the Spirit but is a way of speaking of the gift which should be sought as a filling that overwhelms and overt lows.

      In the record of Luke 3:16 where John is speaking of one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit He adds the words, "with fire." In this

context baptism with fire may be taken as a supplementary way of speaking of baptism with the Holy Spirit but it may be taken as meaning a baptism with judgment in which the wheat is separated from the chaff.

      Many are the references in the New Testament to baptism with water. As a ritual act it had a well-known background in the ritual use of water for cleansing and a particular background in Jewish proselyte baptism and John's baptism for repentance.

      Jesus led the way in being baptized by John. The great commission of Matt. 28:20 bears witness to our Lord's institution. Peter preached baptism in the name of Christ unto the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38) Other references in Acts and Epistles and in succeeding church history bear witness to the ongoing practice of the church in performing the rite of baptism in water as incorporating disciples into Christ and the Church.

      We should not think of the various baptisms as entirely separate. Baptism into Christ may initiate one into a path that involves suffering and baptism into Him opens the way for the filling of the Holy Spirit. However, Churches of Christ, with an emphasis on catholicity have accepted baptism in water as the rite of the one baptism.

The Wholeness of Baptism.

      Churches of Christ may not have been successful always in keeping to the fore the wholeness of baptism but I will enumerate the points that have come through our understanding of New Testament teaching, all of which are necessary to an understanding of what baptism really is.

      1. Baptism is a ritual act of immersion in water. Any quantity of water may appropriately symbolise cleansing but immersion only is the appropriate symbol of death, burial and resurrection. Of course we err if we think of baptism as a rite only. It is here that it is easy to fail in presenting the wholeness of baptism. It is a ritual act but it is more than that.

      2. Baptism is a symbol. It is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and also of the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of the candidate. Further, it symbolises the confession, repentance, cleansing and complete obedience of the disciple to Christ as Lord. But baptism is more than a symbol.

      3. Baptism is an act of obedience. The Church in baptising and the candidate in being baptised are both obeying the Lord. Obedience is not an addition to faith but an expression of it.

      4. Baptism is a response of faith. It is a dramatic confession and act of repentance. Faith, confession, repentance and baptism belong together as one whole. While the Church in baptising shares in the response of faith the response of the disciple is in harmony with the nature of Christianity and the Church.

      There is no magic in Christianity. It is essentially personal and moral. That is, it is a response of persons to a Person and involves a responsible moral choice. The Church is the ecclesia of those who are converted and reborn. For Churches of Christ this is a very significant aspect of baptism.

      5. Baptism is an ordinance in which there is divine initiative and human response. Some may describe it as an act of God but we would prefer to say that God acts before it and in it. God's grace and gracious action lie behind baptism and operate in it. It is not an act of human merit or virtue; it is not a good work by which we are saved. Salvation is wholly by grace but God's saving grace is effective only when the divine initiative is met by the response of the person being baptized.

      6. Baptism is a means of grace. In its wholeness as a response of faith and an expression of confession and repentance it is unto salvation. The response to Christ expressed in the rite lays hold of the grace of God unto salvation.

      As a ritual act of obedience, a response of faith, a dramatic act of confession and repentance baptism is connected with salvation. A person who repents is baptized into Christ (relying on Him) unto remission of sins. (Acts 2:38) With this understanding we may say that the act of baptism is an extrinsic agent of salvation. There is no intrinsic quality in the water that saves a person.

      We repudiate a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. There is no power in baptismal waters however plentiful. We are no more regenerated by baptism than we are by faith or repentance or confession. Grace is appropriated by our response of faith and we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit who operates through the gospel unto conversion and sanctification.

      We seek to avoid any discussion as to whether baptism is essential to salvation. This involves a trap question like the question of whether one has ceased beating his wife. We try to remain positive with an emphasis on facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed and promises to be enjoyed. If people find some difficulties about facts and have a different understanding of commands we do not presume to say promises will not be enjoyed. It is not for us to sit on the throne of God and to place limits on the grace of God by the confines of our thought.

      7. Baptism is a death, burial and resurrection. This is the moral and spiritual reality of baptism which is symbolised in the ritual act.

      8. Baptism is an act of incorporation into Christ and His body. Such passages as Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27 and I Cor. 12:13 make it plain that in baptism we put on Christ in whom we become new creations. cf. II Cor. 5:17. We may say that the ritual act of baptism formally seals the personal commitment by which we are incorporated into Christ.

      9. Baptism is an ordinance with an outer and inner side. On the outer side it is a ritual act while on the inner side there is the inner action of God's grace and the inner response, the change and experience of the one baptized.

      We recognise that it is possible in our life situation to have the outer without the inner or to have the inner without the outer. If in any particular situation we had to make a choice we would prefer someone who has the inner without the outer rather than one who has the outer without the inner but we cherish the New Testament ideal of the wholeness of baptism in which there is both the inner and the outer.

      It is of interest to us to note that back in 1837 Alexander Campbell made the following comment: "We have, in Paul's style, the inward and the outward Jews: and may we not have the inward and the outward Christians? For true it is, that he is not always a Christian who is one outwardly: and one of my correspondents will say, 'Neither is he a Christian who is one inwardly.' But all agree that he is, in the full sense of the word, a Christian who is one inwardly and outwardly.

      "As the same Apostle reasons on circumcision, so we would reason on baptism: 'Circumcision,' says the learned Apostle, 'is not that which is outward in the flesh;' that is, as we apprehend the Apostle, it is not that which is outward in the flesh; but 'circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter (only), whose praise is of God, and not of men.' So is baptism. It is not outward in the flesh only, but in the spirit also. We argue for the outward and the inward--the outward for men, including ourselves--the inward for God; but both the outward and the inward for the praise both of God and of men. . . .

      "None of our brethren regard baptism as only outward. They all believe that in the outward submersion of the body in water, there is at the same time the inward submersion of the mind and heart into Christ. They do moreover suppose that the former may be without the latter. They have only to add that it is possible for the latter to be not without the former in some sense, but without it in the sense in which Christ ordained." ("Millennial Harbinger", 1837, p. 507)

      10. Baptism is connected with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Three passages of Scripture speak for themselves: Acts 2:38, 19:1-6 10:44-48.

      Reception of the Holy Spirit is part of the total experience of baptism. The experience and fruit of the Spirit cannot be divorced from the act and experience of baptism.

Unresolved Questions.

      Christians of various communions would agree with most of what has been said about the meaning of baptism. In the main disagreement concerns the subjects of baptism and the act of baptism. All would agree that the baptism of believers has New Testament support and is valid. The same is true concerning immersion as the act of baptism. The difference is concerning the claim that the baptism of infants is also valid and that sprinkling or pouring is also valid as an act of baptism. Hence two questions remain unresolved as between other churches and Churches of Christ. Whom shall we baptize and how shall we baptize?

      Following Cullman in particular, paedo-baptists say that the early Church operated in a missionary situation when there were no Christian families. New converts came out of a non-Christian background and environment. In this situation it was believers who made the response to the gospel and so believer's baptism was the normal rule. Later when Christian families came into being it was a natural development that babes born into those families should be baptized. The baptism of babes was a natural, necessary and valid development.

      In regard to the act of baptism those who sprinkle or pour, in the last resort, fall back on the authority of the Church, accepting the guidance of the Spirit as authoritative in the development of this practice.

      Churches of Christ emphasise the final authority of the New Testament and accept the doctrine of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the understanding, interpretation and application of the New Testament. This makes room for historical development in the faith and practice of the Church so long as such development does not go beyond given principles, doctrines and practices to which the New Testament bears witness. No development is acceptable if it appears to go beyond what is given in the New Testament.

      While a situational principle may be accepted in the application of New Testament principles and practices, Churches of Christ do not accept the view of development in baptismal practice with the change from a missionary situation to an established Christian context situation because they see something in principle in the nature of the

gospel and baptism which is beyond a situational principle, or, in other words, is independent of the situation. Apart from this there is some question regarding the situation. If the first evidence regarding infant baptism dates from sometime in the second century this seems to trail behind the development of Christian families which surely existed in the second half of the first century.

      We must now address ourselves to the two questions which have been posed.

Who should be Baptized?

      While the symbolic ritual act of baptism is not unimportant it appears to us that the subjects of baptism is the central issue.

      All agree that the New Testament clearly bears witness to believers as valid candidates for baptism but we disagree concerning the validity of infant baptism. There is no question about historical evidence for the practice of infant baptism though there is debate about the period in which it became general practice.

      However widely accepted was the rule of the Didache which may be dated early second century; its requirement of fasting for one or two days prior to baptism would have surely precluded infants. However, infant baptism was referred to indirectly and directly in writings of the second and third centuries. Inscriptions on tombs provide evidence of the practice.

      Irenaeus of the second century made a rather veiled and seemingly confused allusion to it when he wrote of Christ who came to save all who through Him "are born again unto God, infants and little children, and boys and young men, and old men." ("Against Heresies", II. 22, 4) Then elsewhere he described baptism as "the power of new birth unto God." (Ibid. III, 17, 1) Tertullian of the late second and early third century urged the postponement of baptism "until they have become able to know Christ." ("On Baptism", ch. 18, A.N.C.L., Vol. 1, p. 253)

      The great third century Alexandrian father, Origen, made the claim that the tradition of the baptism of infants was received from the Apostles. His statements provide strong evidence that the practice of infant baptism had its origin in the growth of the ideas of original sin and baptismal regeneration. The infant is born with original sin which involves it in guilt and the baptismal waters have power to wash away this guilt. In his homily upon Luke, Origen wrote: "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the law, in their case, hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now? (that is) none is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth."

      As the doctrine of original sin became more and more rooted in the tradition of the Church, infant baptism became more and mare established. When Pelagius, early in the fifth century, denied original sin and the need of infant baptism there was a strong reaction Pelagianism was condemned at the third ecumenical council held at Ephesus in 431. The Church officially formulated and confirmed the doctrine of original sin and by the middle of the century infant baptism became the general practice. Those Christians who no longer hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the doctrine of original sin in the sense of original guilt must find some other doctrinal basis for the traditional practice of infant baptism.

      Historical evidence in itself provides no proof of validity. The point of debate is as to whether the New Testament gives support for Infants as valid candidates for baptism.

      The New Testament makes it quite clear that the church is commanded to baptize (Matt. 28:19) and it is responsible to carry out the ordinance; but persons are also commanded to be baptized (Acts 2.38, 22.16) As commandments are given to people capable of obeying it seems reasonable to conclude that the church is commissioned to baptize those who responsibly respond to the commandment. The one baptized is not a passive subject but an active partner.

      Explicit New Testament examples of baptism relate positively only to believers. Those who "gladly received the word" were baptized (Acts 2:41); the Samaritans believed Philip and were baptized (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopian believed and was baptized (Acts 8:35-38), the Corinthians believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).

      There is no positive evidence in the New Testament of the baptism of those not believing. Infant baptism has been argued from cases of household baptisms, but it is an assumption that there were children m the households referred to, and, indeed, there are suggestions against children being included in them or in the act of baptism

      An account of the baptism of the household of Cornelius is given in Acts 10:44-48. It is nowhere stated that there were children in this household. When Peter gave an account of the conversion of Cornelius and his household he spoke of their hearts being cleansed by faith. (Acts 15:9) In Acts 10:2 we read also that "Cornelius feared God with all his house." These qualifications would surely exclude infants. It may be argued that such a statement as "feared God with all his house" is made in a general way, and is not intended literally to include infants. By the same token we should have to say that the statement that the household was baptized is general, and not intended literally to include infants. This line of approach would apply

to all cases where there are similar statements concerning household

      Acts 16:14-15 tells of the baptism of the household of Lydia. It is not known whether Lydia was a married woman, or, if married, whether she had any children, or if she had children whether they were very young, or whether they were with her, seeing she was a long way from her home town of Thyatira. She attended to the things spoken by Paul. If it was necessary for Lydia to attend to these things in order to be baptized, it is reasonable to assume that all m the household would be required to do the same. In verse forty we read that Paul and Silas returned to the house of Lydia and "when they have seen the brethren, they comforted them." This is hardly the language to be used of infants.

      In Acts 16:27-34 we read of the conversion of the Philippine jailer and his baptism along with all his household. The jailer was told to believe. Would this not be a condition for all other members of his household? It is said they spoke the word to all who were in the house, and they rejoiced, "believing in God with all his house." The qualifications in the account would normally preclude infants.

      Paul says: "I baptized also the household of Stephanas." (I Cor. 1:16) But in I Cor. 16:15-16 it is written that this household set themselves to minister to the saints. We repeat that if it be said that the ministering to the saints is to be taken generally concerning the household and not inclusive of the infant members, neither should we take the baptising of the household as including infant members

      Reference is made to the baptism of Crispus and the Corinthians in Acts 18:8, but belief is explicitly mentioned in relation to both Crispus and his household, and the Corinthians.

      The claim has been made that Karl Barth's book, "The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism" (English translation, 1948) would be regarded as epoch making. Undoubtedly it sparked off a spate of books on the subject. His work would be regarded quite commonly as a product of objective scholarship. It finds no ground for infant baptism in the records of household baptisms. Attention is drawn to the sequence of preaching, faith and baptism and the observation Is made that this sequence rather certainly eliminates the possibility of infants being involved in household baptisms. Taking the New Testament as normative, Barth quite explicitly declared that the case for infant baptism is more than weak.

      In 1948 Oscar Cullmann came to the defence of infant baptism in his book, "Baptism in the New Testament (English translation, 1950). While showing that he would like to use New Testament records of household baptisms in support of his case he quite openly admitted

that they are ambiguous and ineffective proofs of the practice of infant baptism in Apostolic times.

      It is commonly argued that as infants were included in the Old Covenant we should not exclude them from the New, and are justified m baptising them as a seal of inclusion. But infants are not automatically included in the New Covenant. The fact that the Covenant is New makes the Old void. As the New supersedes the Old the conditions of the New exclude infants. Entrance to the Old was by birth, entrance to the New is by rebirth.

      Sometimes it is asserted that baptism took the place of circumcision; therefore, as infants were circumcised they should be baptised. However, it is nowhere stated or suggested in the Bible that baptism took the place of circumcision. Circumcision was a fleshly rife not connected with faith or regeneration, it was based on conditions of flesh which naturally limited it to half the community (Gen. 17:12-13) Baptism is connected with faith and regeneration and s open to all who respond to the gospel. Circumcision was not an initiatory rite as baptism is. It was a seal upon those who belonged to the national covenant by birth. Only in the case of proselytes would it be minatory for all. In some instances circumcision was practised in the early Church concurrently with baptism

      If our Lord's words about children being allowed to come to Him be cited in support of infant baptism we would say that the passage refers to the natural inclusion of children in the Kingdom of grace without any reference to baptism.

      In the light of all the evidence of the New Testament the reference to children in Acts 2:39 should surely be taken to mean the succeeding generations of Peter's immediate audience on the day of Pentecost.

      In his discussion of mixed marriages Paul makes a statement in Cor. 7:14 which is baffling. Interpretations vary. Is it a case of vacuous faith by which an unbelieving wife or husband is "sanctified" or "consecrated" or "acceptable to God" and children are "holy" or "acceptable to God" by reason of a believing partners If we take it to mean that the marriage and children are legitimate (acceptable to God) it provides a case for the security of mixed marriages as against divorce. This is the problem to which Paul was really addressing himself. Should Paul's words about the children be used to support the baptism of infants on the ground of vicarious faith, by the same logic unbelieving wives or husbands would be valid candidates for baptism. This poses problems for all parties--problems that dispose us to retreat from this New Testament passage as at least dubious and even irrelevant to the question of infant baptism.

      Our conclusion is that faith, repentance, confession and baptism are found together in the witness of the New Testament and they ought not to be separated. Divine grace and the response of the recipient are linked in baptism as presented in the New Testament.

      Over against our advocacy of catholicity some may think that our plea for the baptism of believers only reflects the prejudiced interpretation of an odd little sect. While we may be quite ready to stand on our own ground it may be salutary for all concerned to note a few observations made by some reputable scholars not of the tradition of Churches of Christ.

      H. M. Gwatkin in his work, "Early Church History," written in 1927, (Vol. II, p. 251) wrote as follows: "We have good evidence that infant baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord Himself or of His apostles. There is no trace of it in the New Testament. Every discussion of the subject presumes persons old enough to have faith and repentance, and no case of baptism is recorded except of such persons, for the whole 'households' mentioned would in that age mean dependents and slaves as naturally as they suggest children to the English reader."

      At a later date, Emil Brunner in "The Divine-Human Encounter" (1944) said:

      "In baptism it is God, first and sovereign who acts, who forgives sins, who cleanses man and regenerates him. But man acts, too, in baptism. He allows this cleansing of himself to take place, he lets himself be drawn into the death of Christ, he confesses his faith and his attachment to Christ. Baptism is not merely a gift to man, but also an active receiving and confession on the part of man. Indeed, baptism precisely, as this free confession of man, is the stipulation for the individual's joining the Church. Baptism is not only an act of grace, but just as much an act of confession stemming from the act of grace." (128) "Even if by being a member of a Christian household one can in some way be reckoned as being in the covenant of God, yet he can certainly not be considered as belonging to the body of Christ, to which none belong except believers." (130)

      Karl Barth emphasised that according to the New Testament baptism is the answer of a person who has come to faith. The one baptized cannot be a merely passive instrument but must be an active partner in such wise that whatever the stage of life, an infant is plainly precluded. (Cf. "The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism", pp. 41-42)

      In 1959 the Church of England's Liturgical Commission in England, when dealing with baptism and confirmation, proposed completely revised services and recommended a reversal of the emphasis of the

Book of Common Prayer and a return to the theology and practice of the New Testament and the early Church. Believer's baptism was treated as the normal form and infant baptism a modification of it.

      In his book, "The Church in the Power of the Spirit" (1977) Jurgen Moltmann makes the claim that the way to a new and more authentic practice of baptism will be away from infant baptism to the baptism of those who believe, that is, of those who are called and confess their faith.

      Our reading of the New Testament confirms us in the conclusion that it is those who make a response of faith who should be baptized. We see baptism as something belonging to faith and not something either preceding the faith of the one baptized or something added to such faith. Sometimes this is referred to as adult baptism but quite clearly a believer may be an adult or one who has reached years of understanding. The age at which sufficient understanding is reached is an open question. Obviously it varies according to family background and personal development.

      Baptism of believers is not an isolated question. It is linked with the nature of the gospel and Christianity, the doctrine of man, of conversion and of the church. The gospel is the message of God's grace It involves a proclamation of facts, commandments conditions, and promises. It calls for a response without which grace is ineffectual. Man is a being capable of responding with mind, heart and will to the gospel message. Christianity calls for the response of persons to a Person. There is no magic in either its creed or rites. Responsible choice and moral change are integral parts of its texture. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. Man is not born into the Kingdom of God. Rebirth wrought by the Spirit through the witness of the gospel and expressed in conversion is the way into the Kingdom. As an instrument of the Kingdom the church is a called out community of those who have made a personal commitment to Christ as Saviour and Lord.

      The baptism of believers as a dramatic confession and expression of faith and repentance steers clear of the sub-personal and magical and bears witness to vital elements in the Christian faith.

How shall we Baptise?

      The verb "baptize" is a transliteration of "baptizo," the Greek word used in the New Testament. Similarly, the noun is a transliteration of the Greek noun "baptismos." "Baptizo" means to dip, immerse, sink; while "baptismos" means a dipping, washing, lustration. For the general application of water the Greeks used the word "hudraino," while for the specific actions of sprinkling and pouring they used respectively the words, "raino" and "cheo." The

      Hebrew word which is used, for instance, of Naaman dipping seven times in Jordan is "tabhal," and it is translated into the Greek as "baptidzo" and into the English as "dip" or "plunge."

      From the meaning of the word which is consistently used in the New Testament in relation to baptism it is clear that the action is dipping or immersion.

      The few instances of New Testament descriptions of baptism suggest immersion as the act. In Mark 1:5 we read that John was baptising people in Jordan. Verse 9 says that Jesus was baptized, strictly, into Jordan, and the following verse tells how they came up out of the water. The description in itself does not necessarily imply immersion. It is possible, as some ecclesiastical pictures represent it, that they went down into the water in order than John may pour or sprinkle water upon Jesus. But while this is possible, the description suggests immersion as probable, and when we take into account the meaning of the word "baptise" the probability becomes conclusive.

      The same is true concerning the baptism of the Ethiopian as described in Acts 8:36-39. They came upon certain water and went down into the water and came up out of it. The going down into and coming up out of the water fits in with the action of immersion as certainly conveyed by the meaning of "baptise."

      In Rom. 6:3-4 the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are used as a figure of the conversion experience in which one dies to self, is buried in surrender to Christ, and rises to walk in newness of life. Baptism, in turn, is used as a figure of this burial and resurrection. In burial the essential thought is of covering, even if in some cases the covering be a mere sprinkling of earth. As a figure of burial and resurrection the only appropriate action of baptism is immersion. The same figurative representation of baptism is used in Col. 2:12.

      Jesus referred to His overwhelming suffering as a baptism. (Mark 10:38, Luke 12:50) Here baptism is used as the appropriate figure of something that enveloped or immersed our Saviour. As Professor H. M. Gwatkin wrote in his church history: "The whole symbolism of Baptism requires immersion, and so St. Paul explains it." ("Early Church History", Vol. 1, p. 252)

      We find a witness to the catholic tradition of the Church in the writings of early leaders whose names are well known to all church historians. Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Chrysostom, could all be quoted as testifying to the action of baptism as immersion. Later figures such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Wesley concur in this witness. In his Treatise on Baptism Luther writes: "Baptism is called in the Greek language baptismos, in Latin

mersio, which means to plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. And although in many places it is the custom no longer to thrust and plunge children into the font of baptism, but only to pour the baptismal water upon them out of the font, nevertheless the former is what should be done. . . . This usage is also demanded by the significance of baptism, for baptism signifies that the old man and the sinful birth of flesh and blood are to be wholly drowned by the grace of God." ("Works of Martin Luther" Vol. 2, p. 56) Calvin said: "The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse: and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church." ("The Institutes of the Christian Religion", Book IV Ch. 15, Sec. 19) John Wesley said burial with Christ was an allusion to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion. Such testimonies bear witness to the fact that for over twelve hundred years the prevailing practice of the Church was immersion. So Dean Stanley wrote: "For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word 'baptise'--that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into water." (Christian Institutions", 1882, p. 24) The Eastern Orthodox Churches have preserved this tradition. Karl Barth adds a modern testimony to the ancient practice. (Cf. "The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism", pp. 9-10)

      In the Church of Scotland's report on baptism we find the following statement: "Certainly when Baptism is thought of as dying and being buried with Christ, and as rising again with Him, its significance is most potently apparent in total immersion. When Baptism is thought of as God's act of cleansing from sin in the Blood of Christ, then sprinkling or pouring is adequate for the signification." ("Special Commission on Baptism", 1955, p.46) It must be admitted that sprinkling or pouring would be adequate as a symbol of washing or cleansing, but as the report admits, it is inadequate as a symbol of death, burial and resurrection, and so is inadequate as the symbol of the full meaning of baptism. Immersion serves as a symbol of both cleansing, and death, burial and resurrection. Hence it has the advantage of being an adequate symbol of the full meaning of baptism.

      While confirming the traditional practice of sprinkling as a valid act of baptism, the Church of Scotland's Commission on Baptism makes the following admission: "Certainly it is total immersion that supplies the ordinance with its most vivid representation." (ibid. p. 46)

      In contending for the Apostolic practice of immersion as the only correct act of baptism, Churches of Christ, like others following this

practice, have been accused of literalism. This raises the question of what is literalism. It is a form of exactness--the exactness of the letter. Of course there is an essential exactness and an exaggerated exactness. The point of discrimination is a nicety. Like the golden mean it is, as Aristotle said, something to be intuited and something which is hard to hit. Those at one extreme always tend to identify the mean with the opposite extreme.

      We may describe literalism as exaggerated exactness. It lacks spirit and goes beyond the essence of a matter and the principle involved. With this we readily discredit as literalism the insistence that baptism should be in the Jordan, or in a stream or natural pool, or that the Lord's Supper should be held in an upper room. But is it exaggerated exactness to insist on a form evidently given because of an appropriateness that is clear to all? Just as everybody sees that the serpent rather than the dove is the symbol of guile, and that the deer is the symbol of fleetness rather than the snail, is not the act of immersion the appropriate symbol of death, burial and resurrection? Are not essence and principle involved in the appropriateness of immersion as the act of baptism? We would judge that this is a case of essential exactness or true symbolism rather than exaggerated exactness.

      Quite commonly when Christians from different communions become engaged in friendly encounter they tend to discuss matters in which we differ rather than all the things we hold in common. It Is obvious that the things on which we agree are far greater than the things about which we disagree. This means that our discussions destroy perspective. In this situation some may be moved to say that there are important things other than baptism. They may be provoked to say that there are more important things other than baptism. We would readily agree though we can never minimise the importance of death to self, burial in Christ and rising to newness of life. Is there anything more important than that?

      We have already made the point that one may have passed through the experience of spiritual death, burial and resurrection whether the symbolic ritual act has been immersion, pouring or sprinkling or even if no ritual symbolic act has been performed. All this leads us to say that within the framework of Christianity there must be a gradation from most to least important things. If our ideal, however, is completeness according to the guidance of the New Testament we shall remember the saying of our Lord: "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." (Luke 11:42)

The Lord's Supper.

      Churches of Christ commonly refer to the recurring ordinance of Christ as the Lord's Supper. The Lord instituted it, it is a memorial of Him and a communion with Him; the table is referred to as the Lord's table; the cup, as the cup of the Lord; (I Cor. 10:21) and the ordinance Itself is described as the Lord's Supper. (I Cor. 11:20) It seems that at first what was known as the Love Feast was conjoined with the Breaking of Bread and possibly the two together were called the Lord's Supper. Owing to abuse the Love Feast fell into disuse during the second century. We have commonly referred to the ordinance as the Breaking of Bread, following such a reference as Acts 2:42, where it Is written that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Such a description is not only in harmony with New Testament language, but is in keeping with the act of our Lord when He instituted the feast. Less frequently, the ordinance is referred to as the Communion, for while recognising that this description has scriptural precedent, (I Cor. 10:16) we have sought to avoid the impression that this is the only means of communion with God.

      The Lord's Supper involves the past, present, and future. It is an act of remembrance in which we are reminded of the earthly life and death of our Lord. "This do in remembrance of me," He said. (Luke 22:19) But it is more than a memorial; it is also a communion with a Lord who not only lived and died, but who rose from the dead and lives as an ever available Saviour. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (I Cor. 10:16) The spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper is real. Our faith in the Word who became flesh is renewed, our love is expressed and our hope in the final triumph of the Lord is called forth. We show forth the Lord's death until He come. (I Cor. 11:26)

      It is an act of fellowship in which the whole Church as a royal priesthood offers worship. As a fellowship or an act of the whole church the Supper is not administered to others by one selected person. Rather is it presided over by one member of the family circle. As all Christians are priests unto God any member of the church who is qualified morally, spiritually and mentally presides over the act of worship and fellowship. If the minister be selected regularly to preside over the Table it is not because of any priestly right ascribed to him, but simply that it is thought his training in the conduct of public worship enables him to make the best of this solemn and joyous act.

      Emphasis is laid upon the Supper as an act prescribed by Christ. We may come together with diverse beliefs and experiences. Opinions and theories may differ. But it is not what we believe or think, rather it is what we do. Our Lord said, Do this, not Believe this. In the act of obedience we are one. People who differ may therefore gather together in this Feast to express the unity they have in Christ, and through this fellowship prepare the way for further unity.

      We believe we have Apostolic precedent for the weekly Breaking of Bread. I Cor. 11:20 suggests that the true purpose in gathering together was to eat the Lord's Supper. The suggestion of a common recognition of the first day of the week is found in I Cor. 16:2. Luke tells us that the disciples met together on the first day of the week to break bread. (Acts 20:7) This is fairly taken to mean that they met every first day of the week. Apart from the language of this reference the suggestions of the Corinthian passages point in this direction. Early historical references make it clear that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper was the common custom in so much that Chrysostom referred to Sunday as "the day of bread."

      The weekly observance of the Lord's Supper is not based merely on the alleged practice of the first century Christians, but is based upon the conviction that worship is most significant in this act of communion which bears constant witness to the personal character of the Christian experience. The Supper speaks of the personal revelation of God, the personal response of man, and the personal reconciliation between God and man. The observance of the Supper is the highest act of worship, and the purpose of our weekly gathering is to break bread.

      The Lord's Supper is commonly referred to as a feast of remembrance. "This Do In Remembrance of Me" is frequently inscribed on the Communion Table. Communion hymns feature this thought a good deal. Presidents at the Lord's Table make much of the remembrance. This is quite natural in the light of our Lord's words but there is always a danger of an over emphasis which puts other aspects of the Supper in the background. There is also the danger of thinking of remembrance as related only to the past. It is a recalling of something that has been. While it is this it is important that remembrance should also carry the meaning of reminding of something or Someone Who is living, present and relevant today as Saviour and Lord.

      We speak of the bread and wine as symbols of the body and blood of Christ though they are not explicitly so described in the New Testament. It seems clear to us that our Lord spoke figuratively in the institution of the Lord's Supper even as He did on other occasions.

      The Supper was instituted against the familiar background of the Passover. During that festival words to this effect were commonly used: 'This is the bread of affliction that our fathers did eat when they came out of Egypt.' Everybody in the assembly knew that such words were not to be taken literally but that the bread of celebration was representative of the bread of affliction in past history. Following the celebration of the Passover, when our Lord, anticipating the cross, while holding the bread in His hands, said: "This is my body." He would have been understood to be speaking of the bread in His hand as representative of His body. So we understand the words.

      While we speak of the bread and wine as symbols we regard them as more than symbols. In theological parlance the Supper, like baptism, is a means of grace. That is, God's blessing is mediated to us through our worship in the partaking of the bread and the wine. Through the Supper we are built into Christ.

      An old plea for the use of Bible names for Bible things has made us shy of theological and ecclesiastical terms and names; but it has been hard to maintain this plea in the face of changing meanings of words. A plea for the preservation of Biblical ideas and the use of appropriate, current words to express them is a more tenable position.

      There is no escaping thanksgiving ("eucharistia") as belonging to our Lord's institution of the Supper. Hence "Eucharist" is not inappropriate as a description of the Lord's Supper. While it is not used by Churches of Christ they do not hesitate to think of the Lord's Supper as an observance of joyous thanksgiving which is expressed n both appropriate hymns and prayers.

      Much the same can be said about the description of the Lord's Supper as the Sacrament but Churches of Christ would see the Supper as involving a renewed oath of allegiance or a renewal of our covenant with Christ as Saviour and Lord. (cf. Matt. 26:28, I Cor. 11:25)

      The words of institution and the participation in the Supper serve to underline the atoning work of Christ through which we enjoy forgiveness, liberation and reconciliation. (Cf. Matt. 26:28)

      Not least in the Supper is its witness to the victory of Christ over death and His final victory in the culmination of history--a victory in which it is ours to hope and share. We "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." (I Cor. 11:26)

      Under the title of this chapter we must make a brief excursion into historical beginnings and point up the insights and emphases of pioneers of Churches of Christ. We hasten to point out that pioneers of the tradition of Churches of Christ are not our authorities. They simply give us a lead and challenge us to seek the truth to which the New Testament bears witness. We are reminded by them that we must ever be open to reform in the light of the mind and will of Christ as known through the New Testament. He is our real Pioneer and, alone, our final authority. The source, the life and progress of our movement is the truth given and ever unfolding in and through Him.

      Loyalty to facts and my own pattern of presentation must involve repetition of what I have written before both in the book I am re" writing and in other of my writings.

      A coverage has been given in previous chapters but in this one I wish to expound and comment on some of the prominent planks in our platform.

      With the advent of the Reformation the church in Scotland broke with Rome and was established as a State church which embraced Protestant principles. After a protracted struggle it was established as a Presbyterian Church. During the eighteenth century it was plagued by various secessions among which were various groups of Presbyterians known as Seceder Burgher Old Lights, Seceder Burgher New Lights, Seceder Anti-Burgher Old Lights and Seceder Anti-Burgher New Lights. In addition to these there were independent movements which established themselves on congregational lines. From their leaders they were known respectively as Glassites and Haldaneans. Among other things they practised weekly observance of the Lord's Supper and mutual exhortation. The Haldaneans were keen on evangelism and missionary outreach. One section of them practised the immersion of believers as baptism.

      In the early sixties of the eighteenth century Archibald McLean and Robert Carmichael left the Church of Scotland and joined the Glassites. Within a year, however, they left the Glassites and

accepted the immersion of believers as baptism. They then became co-ministers of what came to be known as a Scotch Baptist Church in Edinburgh in 1766. From this beginning Scotch Baptist churches spread to England and Wales. It was through this movement that there developed churches which came to be known as Churches of Christ. In addition to this stream there were several independent congregations that grew up in Ireland, England and Scotland. They arose out of close Bible study which led to the immersion of believers as baptism, weekly observance of the Lord's Supper and mutual exhortation among their members. These independent congregations provided a further background to the group known as Churches of Christ in Britain.

      Across the Atlantic in Frontier America some independent movements provided beginnings of Churches of Christ. In the 1790's in the revolutionary spirit of the time, James O'Kelly led a secession from the Methodist Church in Virginia. At the turn of the century Abner Jones and Elias Smith moved out of the Baptist churches in Vermont and neighbouring States. A few years later Barton Warren Stone and others separated from the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky. They were independent movements with some common emphases such as the rejection of the use of ecclesiastical creeds the rejection of denominational names, a desire to be known simply as Christians, an acceptance of the final authority of the Scriptures, liberty of opinion, the lordship of Christ and personal commitment to Him. Within the movement led by Stone there was a reaction to the prevailing Calvinistic theology concerning man, election predestination and conversion.

      Under the leadership of Stone a movement developed which emphasised all these things together with a plea for the unity of all Christians. He said that division makes heaven mourn and hell rejoice. In the United States of America Stone was first in time among outstanding pioneers of the people who came to be known as Disciples of Christ or the Christian Church.

      A few years later the movement was strengthened by the arrival of Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander, who migrated from the old world.

      Thomas Campbell's father was a Roman Catholic who after returning from war in Canada became an Anglican. Thomas eventually became a minister in the Seceder Anti-Burgher Old Light Presbyterian Church. He was concerned about the divisions of the Seceders and at an early stage went to Scotland as a representative of the Secession Church. It is interesting to note that this union was achieved in 1820.

      Medical advice led Thomas Campbell to the United States of America in 1807 where he entered into ministry in Western Pennsylvania with the Seceder Presbyterian Church. After a time his liberal spirit in inviting to the Lord's Table Presbyterians other than those of his group and his development of ideas different from some of the traditional Calvinistic theology prevalent at that time led to his being censured. These differences and human limitations on both sides resulted in separation from the Presbyterian Church. Campbell continued to preach as an independent and many gathered to hear his plea for liberality and Christian union on the basis of the New Testament alone.

      In 1808, in a private home, he enunciated the maxim, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." While open to different interpretations, as demonstrated in the on-going movement, it was intended to emphasise the final authority of the Scriptures. Drama attended the announcement of this watchword. One member of the house assembly immediately said that this principle was not sound for if it were adopted, it would mean an end to infant "baptism," whereupon another advanced to the front and, with his hand on his heart, said that he hoped he would not live to see the day when the saying of our Lord was repudiated, "Suffer the children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." Having so declared himself, he turned and walked out to weep. As he was going yet another spoke up, saying that in the words quoted there was no mention of infant baptism. The offended member did not weep alone. There were others who turned from the movement because of the felt threat to infant baptism. It should be noted that there were several years of ferment and it was not until 1812 that the immersion of believers was adopted by the group who were initially inspired by Thomas Campbell.

      1809 was a signal year for Thomas Campbell and for the history of Churches of Christ. It was in this year that Thomas made a statement to the Christian Association of Washington which had been organised, a statement which can be regarded truly as a human charter of Churches of Christ. The hearers thought it so good that they decided that it should be printed and published. It was known as the Declaration and Address and set forth the purpose of the movement and outlined a platform for the union of all Christians.

      Thomas Campbell, when he migrated from Northern Ireland, left his wife and family in the care of his oldest son, Alexander. Following shipwreck en route to the United States of America they spent ten months in Scotland. Both father and son had had contact with the independents in Ireland and Scotland. They had also read the writings

of the philosopher, John Locke. It is likely that some of these contacts would have rubbed off, but there were also stirrings within. When the Declaration and Address came off the press Thomas Campbell welcomed his family in the United States of America. Father was a little nervous as to how his oldest son would think of the Declaration and Address. Alexander having, in his heart, broken with some things in the Presbyterian Church, wondered what his father would think of his rebel son.

      When Alexander read the document he declared that he embraced the principles enunciated and said he would give his life to preaching its principles and would do this without accepting pay. Father was delighted but he warned his son that his resolution to preach without pay would mean many a ragged coat. However, ragged coats were not his lot. When he married, father and mother Brown not only gave him Margaret as a wife, but later gave them a farm, which provided a private source of income.

      A few sentences from the Declaration and Address will serve to point up the principles which belong to the original vision and have been formative in the history of Churches of Christ.

      * Promote a pure evangelical reformation by the simple preaching of the gospel and the administration of its ordinances according to the New Testament."

      * "The gospel of the blessed Jesus is reduced to contempt by sad accursed, woeful divisions."

      * "An entire union of all churches in faith and practice, according to the word of God."

      * "Every effort towards a permanent scriptural unity amongst the churches upon the solid basis of universally acknowledged and self-evident truths must have the happiest tendency to enlighten and conciliate."

      * "His dying commands, His last ardent prayers for the visible unity of His professing people will not stiffer you to be indifferent in this matter."

      * "Dear brethren of all denominations" . . . "Till you associate consult and advise together and in a friendly and Christian manner explore the subject, nothing can be done."

      The 13 propositions put forward in the Address may be summed up in five points: (1) The Church is essentially one; (2) final authority is found in the Scriptures, especially the New Testament; (3) creeds are futile as a means to unity and theology has only relative value, (4) remove human innovations and be guided by universally accepted facts and unity will result; (5) Christians of all denominations are brethren and should be united.

      While the desire was to be a movement within a parent church, as in other movements in Christian history, separation resulted and a local church was established at Brush Run. When immersion of believers was adopted as baptism, this reforming church became associated with Baptist churches in a Baptist association.

      As other congregations developed they operated within the Baptist fold, but differences became apparent in these years between 1813 and 1830 and led to separation. Some of the differences which obtained then would not now apply and among Baptist members and Churches of Christ members fairly complete agreement could be found. However, careful discussion and close examination of the historical and general position of Baptist Churches and Churches of Christ disclose abiding differences. For all that there is agreement on the baptism of believers by immersion there are differences concerning the meaning of baptism. Differences also apply concerning the doctrine and practice of the ministry. In various discussions around the world between Baptists and Churches of Christ an important factor has come to the surface, namely, a difference in historical purpose and ethos.

      About the same time that separation from the Baptists occurred a union was effected between the movement led by Stone and that which was largely led by Alexander Campbell. "Disciples of Christ" was adopted as the name of this fellowship of churches.

      From the beginning in the United States of America the movement showed a strong reaction to division among Christians. Stone claimed that disunity in the Church supported the Prince of Darkness and undermined the Prince of Peace. To him disunity was contrary to the will of God making heaven mourn and hell rejoice. He lamented the baleful spirit of sectarianism which, he believed, ruined the Christian world. Thomas Campbell in his Declaration and Address spoke of "sad divisions," "accursed divisions," "woeful divisions" by which the gospel of the blessed Jesus is reduced to contempt . . . unnatural and anti-Christian divisions which have so rent and ruined the church of God."

      There was also a reaction to the use of creeds and theology because they believed such to be divisive. On the positive side of this mood there was a passion for unity and a concern for evangelical Christianity of the evangelistic type.

      In Britain there was a marked concern for the establishment of churches according to their understanding of New Testament order.

      From 1825 personal contacts were made with Alexander Campbell and his writings were read and published in new British journals. This led to a co-operative movement of Church of Christ, Alexander

Campbell presided over the first cooperative conference in Edinburgh in 1847.

      Migrants from Britain established Churches of Christ in Australia Thomas Magarey pioneered the cause when, with others, he established a church in Franklin Street, Adelaide in 1846 In New South Wales, Albert Griffin led the way in starting a church in Sydney m 1852. Later in the next year a definite move was made with a meeting m a tent of Mr and Mrs J. Ingram, in Prahran, Victoria. In succeeding decades churches were established in Tasmania Queensland and Western Australia. Some outstanding leaders from Britain and the U.S.A. visited Australian churches and a Conway contact has been maintained over the years. This has meant cross fertilisation so that an international movement has grown with a concern about what we like to describe as New Testament Christianity which includes the ideal of one Church under one Lord.

The Principle of Restoration.

      The concept of New Testament Christianity arises from an emphasis upon the final authority of the New Testament and it involves a conviction that there are things that are divinely given in the teachings, principles and practices to which the New Testament bears witness.

      From the emphasis on the authority of the New Testament and the concept of New Testament Christianity there has emerged the principle of restoration. The acceptance of the final authority of the New Testament and the principle of restoration have been seen as correlatives.

      The emphasis on restoration always carries the suggestion that in the development of the Church there has been a neglect of things given In the New Testament and a growth of things which not only lack the authority of the New Testament but which are contrary to things given in the New Testament. There is room for expedient development in the life of the Church but not for any neglect of or departure from given principles and practices. The restoration of faith and practice as given in the New Testament is seen as the necessary corrective.

      The validity of the appeal to the authority of the New Testament applies whether we interpret it in terms of restoration or not. However, there are some limitations which have to be faced

      When we read the New Testament the process of interpretation is Inevitable. This applies not only in arriving at the meaning and application of things given in the New Testament but also in

discerning what things in the New Testament have abiding and universal sanction. For example, when Paul says that women should not teach but should remain silent and that they should not worship with heads uncovered, we have to discern whether these things are binding on us today or whether they were local and situational and have to be understood in the light of Paul's claim that in Christ there is neither male nor female. How do we understand his observation that for a man to wear long hair is degrading? Should we greet one another with a holy kiss or engage in footwashing or were these things local and situational and not binding on us today except for a principle that they enshrine? Other illustrations may occur to readers.

      Questions like these have led us to plead for simple, essential Christianity as approved in the New Testament. This is quite sound in principle but in practice it leaves the advocates of restoration vexed by the question as to what is essential. Different people make different emphases and selections according to their understanding. This means that the principle of restoration is not always the easy guide that we would hope it to be.

      Difficulties may also arise when the restoration principle leads to an emphasis on exact patterns. Have we got exact patterns uniformly given in the New Testament in all areas of consideration? For instance, does the New Testament give us a uniform pattern of organisation of the Church, of ministry and worship? There is the further question of whether patterns are binding for all time in all details. May not the mission of the Church need to be determinative of patterns in organisation and ministry? The pattern in these areas that enables the Church to fulfil its mission may be different in the twentieth century from that which served the Church in the first century. There may be room for difference not only from time to time but from place to place and from culture to culture.

      We may have to conclude that the principle of restoration is sound as a principle that provides guidelines rather than as a simple and final determinative of fixed patterns. Always we have to discern what is an essential principle in any pattern.

      We need to underline the fact that the restoration of New Testament Christianity includes the dynamics and not only the forms of Christianity. Jesus commissioned His disciples to teach the observance of all things which He had commanded. The values, standards and ideals set forth in the sermon on the mount are among the imperatives of Christianity. Divisions often centre around church order, ordinances and ministry. This draws attention to the restoration of forms to the neglect of the dynamics of the life and spirit set forth in the New Testament.

      It is important to keep our eyes upon ultimate New Testament Christianity and to see creed, church, ordinances and ministry as foundations, means, and supports of it. This ultimate, we see as a quality of life characterised by basic integrity, grace and concern.

Restoration and Unity.

      The advocacy of the restoration of New Testament Christianity has not been peculiar to Churches of Christ. The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century and the Quakers both pleaded for a revival of primitive Christianity but a study of Church history reveals that these are but two instances of various groups that made this plea.

      While the advocacy of restoration is not peculiar to Churches of Christ the association of restoration and unity does belong to them. Some within Churches of Christ may have seen restoration of New Testament Christianity as an end in itself but generally restoration has been seen in part, at least, as a means to an end.

      In presenting the ideal of Christian unity Thomas Campbell in his Declaration and Address said: "Who would not willingly conform to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament, for this happy purpose?" and he went on to say that anything which we have hitherto accepted as faith and practice for which there is not Scriptural foundation, we would heartily relinquish in order to "return to the original constitutional unity of the Christian Church: and in this happy unity, enjoy full communion with all our brethren, in peace and charity."

      It has been commonly assumed that the Church of the New Testament was united. Some writers within and without Churches of Christ have questioned whether there ever was a united Church. There is little doubt that the Church presented in the New Testament was characterised by diversity but whether there was division is open to question. Division into denominational churches certainly developed later. Whatever, the divine will to one Church, the divine ideal of unity, is clearly presented in the New Testament. If the ideal was never realised or if it was destroyed and if the vision of the ideal has been lost we need the challenge of New Testament Christianity. We may restore many aspects of New Testament Christianity in isolation without unity but we cannot restore New Testament Christianity in its entirety without unity. Unity is an integral part of the New Testament ideal. At the same time we see the implementation of New Testament Christianity as a way out of division and a means to unity. To build upon things given in the New Testament and universally accepted as authoritative is the way to build a united Church.

Our Lord's Prayer For Unity.

      Christ prayed for His followers in His time and those who would become followers through their word that they all may be one as He and the Father were one that the world may believe that God had sent Him. Cf. John 17:20-23. This prayer seems to suggest quite clearly that a vital union between a disciple and God will bring all disciples into a community that will present a convincing witness to the world. Oneness with God will produce a oneness with one another--a oneness that will demonstrate the gospel of reconciliation.

      Our Lord prayed against the background of the world in which He was incarnate. The natural boundaries of race, nation, class and sex were barriers which divided the world instead of enriching it. In so far as the Church became a called out community, and is such today, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female our Lord's prayer has been answered.

      While our Lord prayed against the divisions that existed in His time His prayer is, in principle, set against any kind of division at any time anywhere. This makes it a prayer relevant to our unity as Christians and our division as Churches. Although there is division of Churches we do well to recognise that all Christians who are one with God as Christ is one with the Father share in one basic faith, one basic worshipful attitude to God, one basic experience of salvation, the acceptance of one basic value system and one set of ideals. There is this oneness whatever diversities there may be among us and whatever divisions there are in Church affiliation. This unity is not our achievement, rather is it the gift of God's grace to us. It is sometimes described as our spiritual unity. In this also our Lord's prayer has been answered. However, our division as Churches remains and in this respect our Lord's prayer awaits an answer. Thomas Campbell's words still challenge us: "His dying commands, his last and ardent prayers for the visible unity of his professing people, will not suffer you to be indifferent in this matter." ("Declaration and Address", p. 13)

The Nature of the Unity We Seek.

      The gift of unity which belongs at depth and is enjoyed by all Christians is being more and more expressed in fellowship through acceptance of one another and co-operation in a variety of ways. For this increasing expression of our unity we must be deeply grateful but division is still real. We regularly worship, witness and serve separately; there are limits on inter-communion; unconditional transfer of membership from one communion to another is not an unlimited practice and the same applies to ministry. This division which is quite real goes beyond diversity.

      Diversity belongs to all creation. In nature and human society it enriches the pattern. The gospel is not intended to get rid of the diversities of race, nation, class, sex, personality, etc. but is designed to build one community enriched by diversity rather than divided by it.

      Division into different Churches is something beyond the diversity which we accept. The point is expressed at the ecumenical level in the statement endorsed by the World Council of Churches Assembly at Evanston in 1954: "There is diversity which is not sinful but good because it reflects both the diversities of gifts of the Spirit in the one Body and diversities of creation by one Creator. But when diversity disrupts the manifest unity of the Body, then it changes its quality and becomes sinful division. It is sinful because it obscures from men the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, inasmuch as the Gospel of Reconciliation is denied in the very lives of those who proclaim it." ("The Evanston Report", p. 87)

      Diversity is something which may characterise one community one fellowship, which must express itself as one Church at the local level and at every wider level. Always the expression of unity is in one Church and not in divided churches. The oneness does not mean an organisational oneness across the world but it will mean a fellowship across the world in which there is recognition and transfer of members and ministers without limits just as there is now in particular denominations. There may be diversity in organisation, in types of ministry, in worship and cultural features.

      The acceptance of diversity means that the unity we seek does not mean uniformity. At the same time we have to recognise that the building of any community calls for some measure of uniformity. The unity we seek calls for uniformity in one basic faith one basic worshipful attitude, one basic experience of salvation one basic value system and set of ideals whatever varieties there may be.

      This oneness in uniformity and diversity is something which must be expressed in a visible unity. Visible division is no recommendation of the gospel. The point has been made that whatever invisible aspect of the Church there may be the Church which is portrayed in the New Testament, the Church which is known in history and the Church which is to fulfil the ministry and mission of Christ in the world is visible. Churches of Christ have always majored on a visible Church. The Church which sprang from the Incarnation must itself be incarnational. As the Church is visible so must its unity be visible. Our Lord's prayer is for a manifest oneness as a witness to the world. Mission and the visible unity of a visible Church belong together.

      Pioneers of Churches of Christ saw the visible unity of one visible body just as clearly as they saw other New Testament teaching concerning baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Church and its mission.

      Churches of Christ have commonly talked about Christian unity rather than church unity and some have interpreted this to suggest a union of Christians rather than a union of churches. In this line of thought some have drawn a contrast between what they call an evangelical and an ecumenical approach.

      In this context various facts have to be taken into account. There is really no such thing as an individual or isolated Christian. The gospel calls individuals and builds them into the body of Christ which always takes shape in a group. In our situation response to the gospel means identification with a particular group in distinction from other groups. Christians cannot be separated from their identity groups and in seeking to promote a full expression of unity negotiation will find it at least difficult, if not impossible, to deal with individuals apart from their groups. If we do succeed in appealing to individuals and calling them out from their groups into what new identity group shall we build them? Absorption into an existing group is unthinkable. A realistic approach always meets people where they are, that is in groups or churches. Thomas Campbell was not unrealistic when in his "Declaration and Address" he spoke of the "entire union of all the churches."

      The ecumenical movement as such does not promote or negotiate any union of churches but encourages churches which take their own initiative in this matter. It grapples with the concept of unity and in its thinking explores different ideas. At the Lund Faith and Order Conference in 1952 the opinion was expressed that denominations must die. The Report of this conference contains these significant statements: "We cannot build the one Church by cleverly fitting together our divided inheritances. We can grow together toward fullness and unity in Christ only by being conformed to Him who is the Head of the Body and Lord of His people. . . . We cannot manifest our unity and share in His fullness without being changed." ("Report of the Third World Conference on Faith and Order", p. 10)

      It has been said that no one wishes to join a dying cause. This is true but just as we distinguish between a seed dying from disease and its dying unto the birth of a new plant so we have to distinguish between dying unto death and dying unto fulfilment. We all, both as individuals and groups, have a strong, even a stubborn, urge to identity and we suffer a great fear of the loss of that identity. However, if a movement is serious about unity as a cardinal element in its total emphasis it will see its own death as a fulfilment in which there is a rising to a new life that expresses fullness of unity in truth.

      The aim of embracing all Christian people of all churches around the world has found notable expression in the twentieth century insomuch that this must be known as the ecumenical age. This ideal found some expression before the twentieth century and partial expressions of ecumenicity have been seen in such movements as the British and Foreign Bible Society, Christian Endeavour, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. and various student movements.

      The Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 marked the beginning of a surge forward in the ecumenical ideal. From it came the International Missionary Council and a series of world conferences on missionary activity and strategy. Out of Edinburgh came the Faith and Order Movement which found expression in a series of world conferences beginning at Laussanne in 1927. At about the same time, with roots going back to the beginning of the twentieth century, there developed the Life and Work Movement which also found expression in world conferences beginning with Stockholm in 1925. Out of the latter two came the World Council of Churches, which was inaugurated in a first assembly at Amsterdam in 1948. In 1961 the International Missionary Council became the Division of World Mission and Evangelism within the World Council of Churches.

      Churches are not now invited to become members of the World Council of Churches, they must take their own initiative in seeking membership but in the formative period churches were invited to become members. During 1938 Churches of Christ in Australia were invited through the Executive of Federal Conference to accept membership in the World Council of Churches which was then in process of formation. State Conference Executives were informed of the invitation and provided with copies of the Constitution of the World Council of Churches. After securing approval of State Conference Executives the invitation to membership was accepted. War delayed the formation of the Council but after the war Federal Conference in Adelaide, 1946, unanimously ratified the acceptance of the invitation to membership. Subsequently the membership of

      Churches of Christ in the World Council of Churches was questioned. Some local churches still differ in their attitude to the Council. Since 1948 State Conferences of Churches of Christ, first in New South Wales and later in Western Australia, have voted for withdrawal from membership in the World Council of Churches.

      At Federal Conference in Canberra, 1975, a notice of motion calling for withdrawal from the Council was defeated. The World Council of Churches Programme to Combat Racism has aroused further unrest at local levels.

      The World Council and National Councils which work in conjunction with it are not the only expression of ecumenicity but very significant expression is found here. The ideal of involving all is not realised because not all churches are members.

      The World Council of Churches is neither a church nor a union of churches. As a fellowship of churches it is an instrument of the member churches and provides an avenue of conciliar consultation and cooperation at all levels. The ecumenical movement is concerned with the renewal, mission and unity of the Church and sees these as indivisible. It fosters the ideal of the whole church preaching the whole gospel to the whole world.

      Like the Church the World Council of Churches suffers from weaknesses and failures. It makes no claim to infallibility. As committed Christians do not withdraw from the Church because of its weaknesses and mistakes member churches do not withdraw from the World Council of Churches because of its fallibility. The positive process is to be a corrective voice within the Church or in any council of churches.

      As in the whole Church and in any particular communion there is variety of thought, so in the World Council of Churches there is variety of thought and emphases. Membership does not commit anyone or any member church to accept all individual, minority or majority views within the Council. We are called upon to grapple with differences and divisions in a mature and positive way.

      Living in an ecumenical atmosphere, in the light of our heritage, Churches of Christ cannot live in isolation. Our destiny drives us into involvement.

      During the second half of the twentieth century churches in Australia have lived in the atmosphere of the negotiations of the Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches and the culmination of these negotiations in the Uniting Church of Australia.

      Churches of Christ and the Anglican Church shared in the final negotiations as observers, not as negotiators. The opinion of some that negotiation inevitably involves compromise was possibly the

underlying reason why Churches of Christ took no vote at their Federal Conference to go beyond observation to negotiation.

      The name, "The Uniting Church," has been chosen to suggest the openness of a movement in which other churches may participate if they so decide and if the Uniting Church thinks it opportune. It is apparent that the Uniting Church has its "growing pains" and it would want to reach a state of settlement before any new negotiations are opened.

      The fact that Churches of Christ were not in the original negotiations means that some issues, particularly regarding baptism and the ministry, were not raised. There is an uneasiness among some within Churches of Christ that we, a people advocating Christian unity, were not involved in the negotiations. Others are equally uneasy about any thought of negotiations at any stage.

      Fraternal contacts have resulted in discussions between representatives of the Uniting Church and members of the Victorian. Tasmanian Conference Department of Christian Unity. The latter also serves as a Federal Department.

      In discussing baptism the Uniting Church representatives have emphasised the action of God, the initiative and operation of God's grace, the faith of the parents in presenting a child for baptism and the faith of the Church in performing the rite. The necessary response of faith on the part of the one baptized is also emphasised and this is provided for in confirmation when there is personal affirmation of the baptism performed in infancy. Churches of Christ recognise the initiative and operation of God's grace and the place of the Church in baptism but emphasize the response of the person baptized. The meeting of the divine initiative and the human response are inseparable in time and it is only as there is this meeting in experience that baptism has real. meaning. God's grace does not operate ex operato (by reason of a work done); it is effective only when there is the response of a faith which is at once, accepting trusting and obedient.

      Arising out of these discussions is the matter of the place of the child in the Church.

      The Uniting Church and other churches recognise their membership as consisting of all communicant members and their children though children are admitted to Communion only after Confirmation. Churches of Christ commonly recognise as members only those who as a response of faith have been baptised into Christ and His body by the ritual act of immersion.

      All children, not only children of members, are covered by the grace of God and are within the Covenant of grace and in that sense are

members of the Kingdom of God. When they come to years of understanding and responsibility they either contract out of the Kingdom or contract into it by making a response of faith--a commitment expressed in baptism--by which they enter into church membership.

      It is obvious that children of Christian parents have an advantage because they live in an area of active grace both in their homes and in the local church family.

      The fact is that whether children are recognised as members of the Church or not they are de facto part of the local church fellowship. It is an important part of their Christian education that families participate as families in the worship and fellowship of the Church just as much as that is possible.

      As part of the recognition of the child it is important that there be what may be called a presentation service in which God's gift of a new life is recognised with thanksgiving and in which both parents and church dedicate themselves to the nurture of the child in Christian faith, hope and love so that when years of understanding and responsibility are reached there will be a definite commitment to Christ.

      Seeing that children are a part of the local church family and are to be encouraged to participate as far as possible in the worship and fellowship of the church, what of their participation in the Lord's Supper? This is being advocated today both within Churches of Christ and in other churches. Participation is urged as a necessary part of the child's educational process.

      Our minds must be open to new understandings but before breaking with the tradition of opening the Lord's Table only to those who have been baptized or confirmed serious thought should be given to the nature of the Lord's Supper. Without accepting extreme sacramental ideas we should see that the New Testament presents the Supper as something more than a social sharing. There is a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension in it. Not only is it a remembrance but it is the communion of the body and blood of our Lord. The bread and wine on the Lord's Table have a significance beyond that of bread and wine on the meal table. While concerned about the educational process we should see that here as in all life there is an important educational process in the child's being made aware of distinctions. The distinction between communicants and non-communicants should not be lightly brushed aside. We also have to face the danger of meaningless participation on the part of young children who commonly do something simply because other children are doing it. Our reservations about child evangelism are paralleled here.

      Discussions with other churches, intermarriage, situational circumstances, development of new areas and the ecumenical atmosphere all combine to raise the issue of baptism and church membership. There are more things than baptism in relation to membership in Churches of Christ but situations arise in which it comes to the fore.

      At its 1978 general meeting, the Australian Council of Churches asked member churches to consider a Covenant of Unity which among its propositions put forward one that initiation in the member churches shall be by mutually recognised rites. Various plans of union have included the practice, side by side, of baptism of believers and infants by either immersion, sprinkling or pouring. Many in Churches of Christ would firmly reject this proposal

      Others would be ready to recognise the integrity and intention involved in the pouring or sprinkling of infants as practised by other churches as baptism. This may be recognised as valid for them even if rejected by us.

      While some may be ready to receive into membership of Churches of Christ those who have been "baptised" as infants, generally immersion of believers into Christ is required as a condition of membership even though others are recognised as belonging to the Body of Christ. That is, what we call "open membership" is not generally accepted by Churches of Christ in Australia. Baptism of believers by immersion is insisted on in order to maintain consistency in our witness. Where it happens that one who has been baptized as an infant is immersed as a believer it is not intended to deny the integrity or Christianity of others but is intended to maintain the integrity of Churches of Christ in their stewardship of truth as they understand it.

      Within church relationships there is marked sensitivity about re-baptism. It is easy for Churches of Christ to say it is not re-baptism because sprinkling of infants is not really baptism. For those whose integrity we recognise this is no answer even when we take the line that when we "re-baptise" it is to maintain our integrity and not to question theirs. They make an emphasis upon the objective aspect of baptism as something in which the divine initiative of grace and action is expressed. This makes baptism a once for all act which cannot be repeated.

      Churches of Christ emphasize the response of faith in an act of obedience without which baptism is unreal. This important act of the person being baptised is totally absent in the case of infant baptism which means that the immersion of a believer who has been previously sprinkled as an infant does not involve repetition of the signal element of response.

      Some among paedo-baptists have suggested a resolution of the problem by putting forward the immersion of a believer who has been baptized as an infant as a confirmation in which the candidate affirms a baptism in infancy.

      Under pressure of the charismatic movement and in any plan, of union where baptism of infants and baptism of believers are accepted side by side paedo-baptists cannot escape some calls for "re-baptism."

      While generally in Australia, Churches of Christ are opposed to a plan in which baptism of believers and infants by immersion or sprinkling is accepted, some members, including the writer, would urge us to look seriously at such a proposal provided certain conditions be accepted.

      1. Any existing plan should be seen by all as not final. The Church should be constantly subject to reform in the light of the New Testament under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

      2. Within the uniting fellowship there should be free and full presentation of the various positions concerning baptism. We should be as free within the fellowship as we are now in separation from one another. Such a freedom requires a very real maturity.

      3. No one should be required to practise or perform baptism in a way to which he or she has conscientious objection.

      4. If someone who has been baptized in infancy comes to a new conviction concerning baptism and wishes to be immersed as a believer he or she should be accorded liberty of conscience in the matter without constraint or restraint. This appears to cut across the doctrine of baptism as a once for all event. True, the act of God in baptism is once for all; the act of the Church in baptising is once for all but the conviction of a person in relation to baptism or any other matter is not once for all. All progress and reform depend upon changing convictions and liberty to follow convictions which are not once for all. It is interesting to note that the Plan of Union negotiated by the churches in New Zealand incorporated conditions akin to these.

      In the present situation of separated churches if those who have been baptized as infants come to a position where they wish to be baptized as believers they are at liberty to follow their convictions even to the point of changing church affiliation if they so desire. If there is not this liberty to follow personal conviction within a united church unity would mean this much spiritual loss.

      If the objection of compromise be raised we have to face the fact that we live with compromise. There are impossible compromises such as the impossibility of denying our basic faith. There are also inevitable compromises such as paying our taxes as responsible citizens even though a portion of the tax will be used for purposes to which we have conscientious objection. In addition to this there are what we may call responsible compromises. Life is not always clear blacks and whites. The choice is not always between value and disvalue. Sometimes the choice is between value and value or between the lesser of two evils. We are forced into situational compromises and it is for us to walk the tight rope of responsibility. I believe that in the interest of overriding ends all parties have to be ready for responsible compromises.

      In relation to the acceptance of baptism of believers or the baptism of infants as a basis of church membership we see a difference between the position in a plan of union and the position when we exist separately. When we exist as a separate body we have the right and responsibility to maintain in its fullness our witness to truth as we understand it. We are not obliged to maintain the openness and variety to which we may be ready to commit ourselves in a plan of union.

      Living in an age of ecumenical fellowship and confrontation we have sought to grapple with the questions of recognition of other Christians and membership in Churches of Christ. Over the years and up to the present time the writer has been fully involved in the production of three documents: an original one known as "Christians in Fellowship;" "A Review of Christians in Fellowship;" and "The Basis of Membership in Churches of Christ." These have been circulated by the Churches of Christ Department of Christian Unity. With the permission of this Department I will quote at length from "The Basis of Membership in Churches of Christ" and reprint in full "A Review of Christians in Fellowship."

The Basis of Membership in Churches of Christ--1978.

      1. Churches of Christ have not and do not claim that only those who have been baptized through immersion in water following a personal confession of faith are Christians and members of the body of Christ. We have sought to state what is the positive position of the New Testament and have avoided making negative judgments, for which the New Testament provides no warrant. Our traditional position is that "we are Christians only and not the only Christians."

      2. Our experience, in fact, is that it is clear that God has not withheld His Spirit from countless men and women who have not been baptised outwardly, as we understand the New Testament to require of Christians. It is our conviction that this fact should not be stated grudgingly, but with joyful gratitude that we are fellow members of the body of Christ and heirs of the Kingdom. Whatever decision is made concerning the basis of membership of a local congregation, we believe that it is necessary for our churches to declare much more clearly, in both word and deed, our joyful acceptance of the Christian standing of those who have received the Holy Spirit and continue to live under the lordship of Jesus Christ and who are obviously new creations in Him. (II Cor. 5:17)

      3. The glad recognition of other Christians raises the issue of their membership in a local congregation of Churches of Christ. At the same time, we need to be faithful to our understanding of baptism as indicated above. Moreover, we must consider this in the context in which we are placed--and that is not in a united church but in the present situation in which there are separate churches--Churches of Christ, Uniting Church in Australia, Anglicans, Baptists, etc. It is important to recognise a difference between the situation in a united church in which distinctions concerning membership are not appropriate and the situation where different churches do now exist separately. Other churches do not ignore this difference. The Uniting Church in Australia, for instance, is presently considering the best way by which members of other churches, such as Baptists and Churches of Christ, can be associated with a U.C.A. congregation without loss of identity and without surrender of particular convictions. However much we desire and pray for a fully united church, it is inadequate to act now as if that time has arrived, when it has not.

      4. The division of the church into denominations places us in a situational inconsistency. While joyfully recognising other Christians as members of the Body of Christ (the universal church) we make a working distinction between such membership and membership in Churches of Christ. We do not accept automatic transfer from one church to another. We cannot escape regret that we have seen this as necessary to maintain our integrity (witness) while recognising the integrity of others.

      If we regard our churches as a movement within the universal church, why should members of the universal church want to become members of the movement without accepting all the important convictions that motivate the movement? It is possible now for them to enter into the fellowship of the movement without membership of the movement.

      1. It is important to understand clearly what is intended by the term "open membership" by those in Churches of Christ who advocate it.

      a. Teaching concerning baptism in the local scene is that the New Testament clearly teaches that baptism is an integral part of incorporation into Christ and His Church and that such baptism should be expressed outwardly by immersion as a response of faith.

      b. Only baptism by immersion, following personal confession of faith, is practised within the congregation.

      c. Christians, that is members of churches other than Churches of Christ, may be received into membership of the local Church of Christ without baptism by immersion following personal confession of faith and may receive the full privileges and exercise full responsibilities for membership in the local congregation.

      1. The New Testament makes no distinction between being a Christian and being a member of the church. Acknowledgment that a person is a Christian is an acknowledgment that the person Is a member of the church, the body of Christ, and no-one has the right to refuse membership at the local level. To refuse such membership is in practice rejection of their Christian standing, it is a denial of that love and acceptance which is at the heart of Christianity.

      2. The insistence that the outward expression of baptism is necessary, (when the inward reality of union with Christ is acknowledged) means an emphasis on something external rather than on commitment to the lordship of Jesus Christ and living in the Spirit, and it is the latter which the New Testament stresses not externals.

      3. Obedience to the commands of Christ is of vital importance for a Christian, but to require obedience in baptism (expressed outwardly) when other commands may be ignored (such as love for enemies, forgiveness and the doing of acts of mercy) is inconsistent with the New Testament.

      4. Those who practise infant baptism (followed later by a personal confession of faith as in confirmation) sincerely intend to keep the commandment of Christ even though their understanding is in error, and God has accepted and blessed them with the presence of His Spirit. The same can be said of those who, like the Salvation Army and the Friends, do not practise outward ordinances but

who still stress the need for personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

      5. There is an increasing number of Christians who are worshipping in our churches because they are discovering vitality in our style of worship and witness and many of these desire to become members of the local church and so be able to be more involved in the mission of the church. These Christians feel that our present practice in fact calls into question their Christian standing.

      1. Open membership takes away from the full doctrine and practice of baptism as expressed in the New Testament, where both the inward and outward aspects are held together. This in turn leads to a downgrading of baptism, and often to a silence in preaching and teaching concerning baptism. This is inconsistent with the New Testament which is permeated with baptismal references. Baptism is not an optional extra but stands at the centre of the faith. A clear and unambiguous practice of baptism according to the New Testament is required to bear witness to this.

      2. While it is agreed that undue emphasis should not be placed on the outward aspect of baptism, it must be stressed that the outward aspect of New Testament baptism is not just a matter of externals. The practice of infant baptism, while rightly emphasising the initiative of God's gracious activity and the place of the child in the Christian community, so separates baptism from personal confession of faith that the personal nature of Christian faith is inadequately stressed. This in turn leads to a significant change in the understanding of the nature of conversion and of the church. The outward aspect of baptism must not be seen in isolation from these basic issues of faith.

      3. Open membership involves some major inconsistencies:

      a. A Christian from another denomination, once he has become a member of Churches of Christ, in practice needs to accept, among other things, weekly observance of the Lord's Supper, leadership of worship by various members and a congregational form of government, which are part of the particular witness of Churches of Christ. It is inconsistent that baptism, which in all churches is related to membership, is not accepted as understood and practised by Churches of Christ, especially when baptism is more basic to Christian faith.

      b. There is inconsistency in requiring of converts that for membership they be baptized into Christ by immersion as a response of faith while not requiring the same for those who wish to transfer from membership in another church.

      Unfortunately the requirement of baptism by immersion as an expression of faith may be interpreted as a questioning of the Christian standing of members of other churches. While this is a difficulty, it is better to accept it rather than be involved in the inconsistencies of open membership.

      4. The practice of open membership raises a question concerning the purpose in giving teaching about New Testament baptism to members who have not been baptized by immersion following personal confession of faith. Baptism for them cannot be for salvation, nor for church membership nor for Christian unity. It can only be seen as a relatively unimportant act of obedience, but baptism is much more than an act of obedience.

      5. The experience of churches where open membership has been practised indicates that it can introduce needless tension and division. It is true that during the early period of our churches in America, in parts of the Restoration Movement (e.g. those associated with Barton Warren Stone) baptism by immersion following personal confession of faith was not required of every member, although the vast majority were so baptized. It is also true that there are congregations in the U.S.A. and other countries where open membership is practised in which there is harmony and a clear witness to the New Testament teaching on baptism. It is also true that consideration of the issues involved has caused many people within our churches to look seriously at their acceptance or otherwise of the Christian standing of members of other churches. But unfortunately it is also true that in many congregations the practice of open membership has been accompanied by dissension. This has been due to various factors including the conviction that open membership marks a rejection of an important part of the witness of Churches of Christ and that it has led to a weakening of our witness on this issue, as well as a lack of understanding concerning the integrity of the conviction of others. The possibility that similar factors would evidence themselves in the Australian scene is something that causes concern.

      1. There is no easy answer concerning the way it is best for Churches of Christ to hold in tension our witness to New Testament baptism and our desire to manifest our acceptance of the Christian standing of members of other churches. We would stress the importance of exercising Christian love and understanding when differences arise over this issue because experience indicates that such an appeal needs to be made again and again.

      2. Reasons for open membership are important and demand serious attention. It is our conviction, however, that the theological difficulties which are created by open membership would be greater than the difficulties experienced at present.

      3. Thus we recommend that, in the present situation of the separate existence of churches, local congregations of Churches of Christ adopt the approach which is described as "Christians in Fellowship." A separate statement concerning Christians in Fellowship is available, but in brief the proposal is that in addition to the roll of members of the local congregation of Churches of Christ, a roll be kept of Christians who are full communicant members of other churches and who desire to identify themselves with the work and witness of the local Church of Christ. These Christians in Fellowship may share equally with members not only in the service of the Lord's Supper but also in all aspects of the general life and activity of the congregation except where the particular witness of Churches of Christ is at issue.

      4. It is recognised that "Christians in Fellowship" as such does not and cannot solve the basic issue. Only in a united church, for which our Lord prayed, can distinctions concerning membership be removed. Also, only through a spirit of loving acceptance can Christians in Fellowship be shown that their Christian standing in no way is in question and that they are not regarded as second-class members of the body of Christ. On the other hand, understanding will be increased as Christians in Fellowship recognise that their inability to become members of Churches of Christ is not due to the maintenance of tradition, or to exclusive claims, but to convictions about the teaching of the New Testament concerning matters that are basic to the Christian faith. What is required also is clear teaching in a non-sectarian way concerning the witness of Churches of Christ.

      5. It is our conviction that Churches of Christ have a valid witness to share and that the approach of Christians in Fellowship is the best way in the present circumstances to share it. Our witness involves more than the doctrine and practice of baptism, but it does include that. And baptism is not a side issue. In fact, it expresses the basic truths of the gospel concerning conversion, the church as a gathered community and Christian faith as personal and moral.

      Relatively speaking, no intelligent Disciple (member of Churches of Christ) holds that baptism, in itself alone considered, is of the same importance as faith and repentance. It is held, and held very strongly

- 96 -

too, that baptism derives all its value from its antecedents faith and repentance. Without these it is an empty form. Faith and repentance have a value of their own without baptism, but baptism without faith and repentance is without any value whatever . . .

      The Southern Baptist is in error when it states that the position of the Disciples in regard to baptism is that it is one of the conditions essential to salvation. If there are any in our brotherhood who take that position they do so in ignorance. It is not one that any of our representative men would care to take. It is one which they have frequently repudiated. If it is said that anything is essential to attaining a certain end, that end cannot be attained without it. It is absolutely indispensable to the accomplishment of the purpose in view. The Disciples do not take this stand in regard to baptism. In the first place there is no Scripture warrant for taking this position. They confine themselves to the language of Scripture and the legitimate meaning which scholarship has given to it. They affirm that baptism, preceded by faith and repentance, is for the remission of past sins, and that these are the normal conditions of pardon as set forth in the full teaching of the New Testament. In view of the great law so clearly set forth in Scripture, of responsibility according to the measure of man's knowledge, they do not affirm that under all circumstances and under all conditions, baptism is essential to salvation.

F. G. Dunn, Australian Christian, 16th August 1906.      

      Who is a Christian? I answer, Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God, repents of his sins and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. A perfect man in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing; and "a babe in Christ," a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian, is another. The New Testament recognises both the perfect man and the imperfect man in Christ.

      But everyone is wont to condemn others in that in which he is more intelligent than they; while, on the other hand, he is condemned for his Pharisaism or his immodesty and rash judgment of others, by those that excel in the things in which he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven . . .

- 97 -

      Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandment? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment for universal or even general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known . . .

      There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, or a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian--though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. My right hand and my right eye are greatly essential to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my life; and as I could not be a perfect man without them, so I cannot be a perfect Christian without a right understanding and a cordial reception of immersion in its true and scriptural meaning and design. But he that thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of clear and full vision . . .

      We cheerfully agree . . . that the term Christian was given first to immersed believers and to none else, but we do not think that it was given to them because they were immersed; but because they had put on Christ. . . .

      Now the nice point of opinion on which some brethren differ, is this:

      Can a person who simply, not perversely, mistakes the outward baptism have the . . . inward baptism which changes his state and has praise of God, though not of all men? . . . To which I answer that, in my opinion, it is possible.

A. Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, 1837.

Portions of the 'Lunenburg Letter'.

      This statement seeks to describe the document Christians in Fellowship" and to report the experience of various churches that have adopted the idea since 1964.

      The initial document arose out of a particular situation as the newly established congregation at Scoresby Road in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne (now known as the Knoxfield Church of Christ), together with its sponsoring church, Boronia, considered how best Christians other than members of Churches of Christ could be involved in the total life of the congregation. Because the issue had implications beyond the local congregation, it was felt desirable to discuss the matters with representatives of the Brotherhood. Two other local congregations asked to be included in the discussions. Thus a committee was formed composed of representatives of the Victorian-Tasmanian Conference Executive, the Department of Home Missions and Evangelism and the Department of Christian Union, together with representatives from the churches at Boronia-Knoxfield, Mitcham and East Preston. This committee produced the original document "Christians in Fellowship." This received assent from the various Departments and churches represented. It has been made available since then to other churches which have made enquiries.

      Most churches that have adopted Christians in Fellowship have used the 1964 document as a basis for their constitution. It is significant, however, that one congregation (which does not support the ecumenical movement), quite independently arrived at almost identical conclusions as they recognised the presence in their congregation of many Christians who are not members of Churches of Christ.

      During 1975 and 1976 reports have been sought from churches in Victoria concerning their experience of and attitude towards Christians in Fellowship. It has been found that while Christians in Fellowship has been adopted formally by only a minority of the local congregations, sufficient experience has been gained for valid comments to be made. These comments are printed in italics to distinguish them from description of the original document. N.B. At the time of the publishing of this book a large number of churches were reporting Christians in fellowship to Conference Handbooks.

      The 1964 "Christians in Fellowship" document begins by pointing out that it is common to find within the life and worship of local Churches of Christ persons who do not belong to Churches of Christ. This is the result of inter-marriage, isolation from their own church, appreciation of the vitality or worship style of the local congregation, and other factors.

      The document continues. "Some, at least, have no desire to sever their association with their own Communion but for various reasons they express their Christian life within our congregation. They share fully in the Lord's Supper in our churches, they contribute financially to our work and they serve in many capacities. The limits of this service vary from congregation to congregation. By allowing these persons to participate in the Lord's Supper we acknowledge them as disciples of Christ and members of His Body, the Church."

      The aim of Christians in Fellowship has been to clarify the position of such people for the benefit of

      "1. members of Churches of Christ;
      2. non-members of Churches of Christ involved in the life of the local congregation;
      3. other communions within the ecumenical fellowship whose members may be involved in Churches of Christ congregations."

      The practical and theological intention has been to provide a working arrangement which preserves the balance between, on the one hand, the ecumenical spirit of Churches of Christ as against an exclusivist position, and, on the other hand, an "open membership" practice which undermines the witness of Churches of Christ concerning the Church, conversion, the nature of Christianity and baptism.

      The document defines Christians in Fellowship as "those who have conformed to the requirements of communicant membership (or its equivalent in the case of members of the Salvation Army and the Society of Friends) in the Church to which they adhere, but who wish to share as fully as possible in the life and service of a local congregation of Churches of Christ."

      The document continues; "On the wider level, Christians in Fellowship desire to remain identified with the Communion of their choice but at the local level they desire to share with us in congregational life. This document seeks to find a way to allow these desires to be fulfilled without in any way minimising the tension between them in a disunited Church."

      "While acknowledging our responsibility to respect the integrity of these persons as members of Christ's Church, we must not fail to acknowledge also the vital responsibility to witness to the historic tradition of Churches of Christ. This document seeks to indicate how these two responsibilities can be carried out in the present situation."

      The survey has confirmed that the situation described in the document still exists in our churches, and in fact is present more

than ever. A number of congregations that have not adopted Christians in Fellowship officially are aware of the issue but either have decided that it is not opportune to discuss the matter at a congregational or Board level or they have had hesitations about aspects of the Christians in Fellowship proposal. It is hoped that this report will diminish the hesitations and will encourage churches to consider the issue more fully.

      Lengthy discussions in the production of the document disclosed some basic convictions. These were stated so that the spirit of the proposal could be felt by others. The document states;

      "1.We believe that Churches of Christ have a continuing witness to make within the Church of Jesus Christ in its present divided state, and that this witness needs both to be preserved and to be expressed more vitally in each local situation.

      It is assumed throughout this document that persons who seek membership in the congregation in the normal way receive instruction in the principles and practice of Churches of Christ before and after baptism.

      2. We believe that members of Churches of Christ are not the only Christians but are "Christians only" and that all Christians who meet in any one place are required by the very nature of the gospel to develop a corporate fellowship one with another.

      3.We believe that each congregation has the pastoral responsibility to make available to every Christian meeting in any one place opportunities to exercise not only the privileges but also the responsibilities which are integral parts of the membership in Christ's Body, the Church, and that at present this pastoral responsibility is not being fulfilled as it ought.

      4. We believe that the requirements for membership in the Church must never be minimized and that we need to uphold before all the high demands of Christ for His people.

      5. We believe that in a fellowship of love, in which the reality of the discipleship of any believer is not questioned and in which cherished convictions are courteously respected (even if conscientiously they cannot be agreed with) the Spirit of God can best lead all believers in any place to a fuller understanding of His will as revealed in Christ and through Scripture."

      Some have questioned the distinction between membership in the body of Christ and membership in the Movement known as Churches of Christ. It is true that such a distinction cannot be made on the basis of the New Testament, but the unbiblical fact of a divided church means that such a distinction is needed for the time being so that we- face realistically those things which separate Christians. It is not adequate to claim, as some do, that because Christians appreciate the vitality of a certain local congregation, they should become members of the Movement known as Churches of Christ when they do not share some of its basic convictions.

      Such an attitude does not do justice to the first conviction stated in the document.

      On the other hand, concern must be expressed also that others do not make any clear distinction between a member of another church and an unbelieving humanist. A person who is a member, for instance, of the Methodist church (Uniting Church) should be acknowledged clearly as a Christian by a congregation of Churches of Christ, and this should be reflected in the way that person is able to share in the life and witness of that congregation.

      It is common for each local congregation to maintain in some way a roll for active members, a supplementary roll for inactive members and a roll for isolated members. The original document recommended that a further roll be established for Christians in Fellowship. This roll would consist of "all believers who

      1. are full communicant members of other Christian communions and
      2. wish to retain their identity with such communions and
      3. have supplied to the Church adequate evidence of such membership and
      4. have confessed their Christian faith by diligence in worship and faithfulness in full Christian stewardship in the life of this congregation."

      It is stated that before any person is listed on this roll, a representative of the congregation should explain the reasons for the Christians in Fellowship Roll (along the lines of the Basic Convictions set out above). This explanation would include a statement concerning the witness of Churches of Christ. It would also indicate that, because of local autonomy, if the person concerned moved to another district, he would not automatically be entitled to similar rights in another Church of Christ.

      The only difficulty found with this procedure has been whether the persons listed on the Christians in Fellowship Roll should be included in the statistics reported to Conference (and therefore whether they should be taken into account in determining affiliation fees to Conference).

      Most importantly, Christians in Fellowship has provided some opportunities for frank discussions of the witness of Churches of Christ and has brought to the fore the fact of the disunity of the church.

      The document provides that Christians in Fellowship may share equally with members in the service of the Lord's Supper and in the general life and activity of the congregation. They may serve on committees and (with some exceptions to be mentioned shortly) they may vote at business meetings.

      The restrictions on Christians in Fellowship were listed under the heading of "Maintenance of Identity as a Church of Christ." This explains clearly the intention of the specific clauses. Those matters which can be determined only by those who are on the Active Members Roll of the local Church of Christ (and NOT by Christians in Fellowship) are:

      a. The appointment of a minister;
      b. The appointment of elders;
      c. The appointment of Conference delegates;
      d. The trusteeship of the property;
      e. The following matters relating to the distinctive witness of Churches of Christ--the name of the congregation, the observance of the Lord's Supper, the practice of baptism;
      f. Matters affecting the Constitution of the congregation, including the amendment of any document relating to Christians in Fellowship."

      The document also states that elders and conference delegates shall be elected only from the Active Members Roll. (It assumes that only a churches of Christ minister would be called to a congregation).

      In adopting the Christians in Fellowship proposal, some congregations decided that the restrictions were greater than necessary to ensure that the witness of Churches of Christ is preserved. Experience has shown that in no congregation which has adopted the Christians in Fellowship proposal have Christians in Fellowship sought to alter the witness of Churches of Christ.

      The committee that prepared the original document expected that because of the presentation of the witness of Churches of Christ, some, at least, of those listed as Christians in Fellowship would decide to become members of Churches of Christ. Thus the document states that "a person may be transferred from the Christians in Fellowship Roll to the Active Members Roll provided the believer, having been convinced that God calls him to such an act of obedience, is baptized by immersion." The document suggests that the counselling leading up to this decision should be done with sensitivity to the person's membership in another church and that it include instruction on the various aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ.

      This expectation has been realised. Some Christians in Fellowship have been convinced of our witness (including that on baptism) and thus have become members of Churches of Christ. In some instances, it appears that the feeling of acceptance created by Christians in Fellowship has made people more open to the presentation of our witness. Also there is evidence that when children of Christians in Fellowship reach the age of decision for Christ and His Church, Christians in Fellowship have encouraged the decision of their children to become members of Churches of Christ.

      The original document also provides that a person may be transferred from the Christians in Fellowship Roll to the Active Members Roll provided "the believer has been baptized by immersion following confession of faith in a communion other than Churches of Christ."

      The survey has found that the intention of this provision has not been understood or acted upon. The committee that produced the original document believed that the witness of Churches of Christ relates to more than baptism. They were proposing, for instance, that members of the Baptist or Brethren or Pentecostal churches should not automatically be accepted as members of Churches of Christ solely on the ground that they had been baptized by immersion following a confession of faith. Such a person may not have considered other vital aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ. Thus it was proposed that such a person should be regarded as a Christian in Fellowship until the opportunity had been taken to share concerning the witness of Churches of Christ. Experience has shown that in some congregations difficulties have been encountered when some baptized believers who have been nurtured in a church other than Churches of Christ have

entered the membership of Churches of Christ and then have become critical of aspects of the witness of Churches of Christ.

      There is no easy solution to this. Consideration of the provision in the Christians in Fellowship proposal could lead churches to look more closely at this issue.

      The original "Christians in Fellowship" document is now only one of a number of similar documents, but the descriptive phrase "Christians in Fellowship" is widely used among local congregations. Constitutions vary according to local circumstances and attitudes. We need to recognise flexibility which will do justice to the integrity of the local congregation and to the integrity of the whole Brotherhood of Churches of Christ. The aim of the original document (and of this statement) is to give guidelines for a working arrangement which will allow the witness of Churches of Christ to be maintained while at the same time enabling our fellowship with all believers to be expressed adequately.

      From the returns of the survey it is clear that a few churches strongly reject the idea of the unimmersed holding any office in the local church. A minority of churches have formalised their ideas and the majority of these largely follow the document described above. Most churches have not formalised the concept of Christians in Fellowship but virtually practise it. The unimmersed are gradually assimilated into positions of responsibility in the local church.

      It is recommended that churches give careful consideration to their practice so that members of Churches of Christ are helped to consider their attitudes to Christians outside Churches of Christ and also so that such Christians sharing in the life of our congregations may experience more fully both our concern for the witness of Churches of Christ and also our partnership with them in love in being obedient to the gospel of Christ.

      Consultation with representative leaders of the Brotherhood also is imperative so that decisions by a local congregation do not create difficulties for the rest of the Brotherhood.

      By a process of transliteration the Greek word "charisma" has come into common use and everybody understands that it means a special gift. In common thought it is thought of as a natural gift. One has got it or one has not got it. Training can heighten and direct the gift but cannot endow one with it. Years ago I read a comment regarding a famous violinist to the effect that we can imitate his baggy trousers and the way he grows and does his hair but we cannot imitate his playing because he has a gift.

      A reliable Greek Lexicon says that "charisma" means a gift of grace, a free gift, especially is it used of extraordinary operations of the Spirit as described in I Cor. 12. In this chapter Paul uses the root word "pneumatikos" which is translated as "spiritual gifts" and he goes on to use the word "charismata" which is translated as "gifts." We see here a basis for what is known today as the charismatic movement which has found expression in all churches around the world. In former days it was mainly characteristic of those churches commonly described as Pentecostal.

      It has been traditional for Churches of Christ to take the position that the gifts of the Spirit were temporary. They had a purpose to fulfil in the days when the Church was being established and when that was achieved they ceased to be. Particularly when the canon of the New Testament was established the need for the gifts no longer existed so they ceased. In addition to this line of approach an attempt was made to find an explicit New Testament basis for regarding the gifts as temporary in nature. It was asserted that the gifts were imparted by the laying on of Apostolic hands and as these have ceased the gifts ceased. This cannot be regarded as any more satisfactory than saying that if it rains the garden will be wet; it has not rained so the garden will not be wet. The existence of tap and hose show the fallacy of this line of argument. Even if it can be shown that in some cases gifts of the Spirit were transferred by the laying on of Apostolic hands it cannot be proved that in all cases this was so. Hence we cannot deduce the premise: "If Apostolic hands, and only if Apostolic hands, would gifts of the Spirit be imparted."

      Sometimes I Cor. 13:8 has been pressed into service: "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." This text will serve, however, only if the passing and ceasing be taken to refer to a time in history rather than to a time beyond history.

      In the main Churches of Christ have had to fall back on the argument that it appears that in the course of history something that was experienced in the early days of the Church ceased to be experienced in later times and there is no need for regret.

      However, if there was a cessation the experience of the gifts of the Spirit has returned, not only in the Pentecostal Movement but in the wider stream of the whole Church. It has appeared in a movement that regards the experience as something valuable that had been lost and is now joyfully recovered.

      It is very important for us to take note of all the gifts of the Spirit as they are enumerated in the New Testament. In I Cor. 12 Paul lists nine gifts: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning spirits, tongues and interpretation. In Rom. 12:6-8 he repeats prophecy and adds service, teaching, exhortation, giving, aiding and mercy. Fifteen gifts are explicitly enumerated.

      Within Churches of Christ when arguing the temporary nature of gifts it is pretty evident that the spectacular gifts of tongues, interpretation, healing, miracles and prophecy have been in mind. We have argued in a general way about the temporary nature of the gifts of the Spirit while being selective in applying our arguments to them. None would really want to argue that gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, discernment, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, aiding and mercy were temporary in the life of the Church. We still need the gifts of the Spirit but it is legitimate to ask whether some gifts are needed more than others.

      Some have described the gifts of the Spirit as heightened natural gifts. This certainly could be true of some of them for it is quite apparent that there are natural gifts in the areas of wisdom, knowledge, discernment, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, aiding and mercy. If prophecy be understood as insight into truth and the capacity to communicate that truth by magnetic speech this may be added to the natural gifts. How important are these gifts in the life of the Church and how important that they should be heightened by the operation of the Spirit!

      From a reading of the passages in which the gifts are particularly mentioned it is clearly suggested that they are specialised. There is one Spirit who is common to all in the body of Christ but the gifts are diverse and not shared by all.

      A reading of I Cor. 12-14 makes it clear that some of the gifts were an occasion of a problem in the community. Gifts that were intended to be complementary in the wholeness of one body (I Cor. 12:14-30) became an occasion of pride and competition. This in itself is a warning against mutual denigration as between those who have certain gifts and those who do not have them.

      It should be recognised that the basic emphasis of the charismatic movement is upon renewal through the Holy Spirit. For observers, however, it appears that in the manifestation of this renewal the gifts of tongues and healing in particular come to the fore. For this reason some observations concerning the gifts of tongues and healing are warranted.

The Gift of Tongues.

      In Acts 2 we find the word, "dialektos" which means conversation, discourse, speech, language or dialect, and also the word, "glossa" which means a tongue or language. The narrative says they spoke in other tongues ("glossais") and that the hearers "heard them speaking in their own language ("dialekto"). It appears that the people who were gathered there from different places heard each in an intelligible language. If it was heavenly language that needed the gift of interpretation the only explanation of the fact that each heard in his own language or dialect is that there was a miracle of hearing.

      Whatever, the narrative says that each heard in his own language. To receive the gift of speaking in the language of different people would be a great help to the missionary enterprise in countries of different languages but we are not aware of anyone claiming this gift except that, under tuition, some have a natural gift to pick up a new language more readily than others.

      In I Cor. 12-14 the one word, "glossa" is used and the narrative makes it clear that it was a gift of utterance that needed interpretation. (14:2) Some describe it as ecstatic utterance. Primarily this gift is for self-edification. (14:4) Only if there be interpretation do tongues edify the church. (14:5)

      Paul exhorted his readers to desire the higher gifts and he wrote down the gift of tongues in comparison with the gift of prophecy. He then went further and set a quality of life rooted in and characterised by love as a more excellent way above all the gifts.

      In the light of all that is said in I Cor. 12-14 we could never say that the gift of tongues or the experience of other gifts is a sign of a superior Christianity. In view of the selective character of the gifts it cannot be suggested that the gift of the Spirit must be manifested in gifts or that if one does not experience the gift of tongues or other such gifts one has not received the Holy Spirit. The proof of the gift of

the Spirit is found in the fruit of the Spirit as depicted in Gal. 5:22 which fruit includes the quality of life portrayed in I Cor. 13. If for some people the fruit of the Spirit is stimulated by an experience of gifts we readily say, "Thank God."

The Gift of Healing.

      Gifts of healing are referred to three times in I Cor. 12 and like other gifts they are suggested as being selective. In the New Testament record of the Church after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost healing does not play a prominent part. Healings are credited to Peter, Paul and Philip but the Apostolic writers do not write about healing in their various letters. Christ did not heal all sick people with whom He came into contact. John 5 which tells of one among the many there who was healed by our Lord may serve as an illustration of selection.

      Healing seems always to be selective. It does not come to all people nor to all kinds of illnesses treated either by medical science or special healing ministries.

      While we accept the reality of special healings we cannot escape the fact that special healings do not always take place. There is nothing automatic, easy or sure about special healing as though all we need is sufficient faith and prayer. Paul's experience of thrice asking for healing and receiving the answer that God's grace was sufficient for him (II Cor. 12:8-9) is not untypical.

      God's gifts of healing referred to in I Cor. 12:9, 28, 30 cannot be confined to the supernatural. Observation of various people makes it obvious that some people have natural gifts, apart from Christian faith, in relation to healing. We should also recognise the whole range of medical science as a gift of God.

      The New Testament and on-going experience bear witness to God's working through the miraculous or supernatural but life is full of evidence that God works also through the natural. We live in a world which we believe is God's creation. Its laws are His laws and in general they serve us wonderfully well. The natural is His gift. If He is not in and does not operate in the natural He is absent from life as we commonly experience it.

      It is important that Christians share in the world in which all people live rather than be cosmic pets who enjoy exemptions. The sufficiency of God's grace to make us equal to life as it is experienced by our neighbours is something that needs to be proved.

      James says: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up . . ." (James 5:14-15) Among the Jews, we

understand, a sick person was anointed with oil and prayed over by the Rabbi to whom he went rather than to a doctor. In the East oil was regarded as the best of medicines. In this context James naturally reflected the thought of his times. Doubtless oil still has its place in healing but in our age prayer may need scientific accompaniments other than oil. James underlines the call for concern about the sick and the value of prayer in relation to sickness but all that he says about healing must be considered in the light of the whole of the New Testament record and the whole of human experience. We must ever be on guard against building up an undue expectancy concerning special healing and the danger of blaming lack of sufficient faith if healing does not take place.

      We should take into account our understanding of man as body-mind or body-soul or body-spirit however we express the truth that man is more than a physical organism. This bears upon man's health and sickness and must bear also upon the process of healing. This is well recognised today. In the light of this we cannot underestimate the importance of love, acceptance, fellowship, relationship, faith, hope and prayer in relation to healing. Without special healing missions and ministries the healing ministry of the Church is real.

      In the record of John 5 Jesus said to the sick man: "Wouldst thou be healed?" and we read that he was made whole and exhorted to sin no more. He saw sin as the basic ill of man but was concerned with the whole man as body and spirit thus giving a lead for a ministry that is concerned about making people whole.

      All that we have but touched upon in this chapter is in the area of interpretation and opinion. According to the tradition of Churches of Christ that puts it in the area of liberty. Accordingly we do not make such matters a test of fellowship or a measure of the Christianity of another. Acceptance is the keyword. It is for those who are not captured by the charismatic movement to refrain from rejecting in any way those for whom the charismatic movement provides reality and it is for the latter not to doubt the gift of the Spirit in those who are not captured by the charismatic movement.

      A study of the history and tradition of Churches of Christ leads to some general observations.

      The concern for the mission of the Church requires an aggressive programme of outreach, witness, service and involvement. Evangelistic thrust and commitment to growth not for the sake of the Church as an institution but for the sake of all those for whom God has concern is imperative.

      Convictions may lead some Christians of other church traditions to seek membership in Churches of Christ and all church doors should open to such pilgrimages. However, our concern should not be for such horizontal conversions. Growth of the Kingdom is our real concern and that drives us to seek conversion from no commitment to Christ to commitment to Him.

      There is a future only for and truly for Church and Churches whose zeal does not flag for the commission to "make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20)

      In our original vision there was a passion for unity and we have seen mission and unity as inseparable in the will and working of God. The unity of Christians is a vital demonstration of the gospel of reconciliation. As mission drives us into the involvement of outreach so the plea for unity drives us into involvement with other Christians. Our stewardship of the truth which we believe we hold in trust will keep us from any irresponsible compromise and will require us to live in the tension of separation while pleading for unity. We are doomed to separation until the way opens for unity without irresponsible compromise. Truth as we understand it and liberty of witness will require of us a vigour and virility rather than lethargy in our separation.

      At the same time separation should not mean isolation. For all the differences and divisions of Christians and Churches, some of which are quite deep, our agreements are deeper and greater than our disagreements. Our agreements make dialogue possible; our disagreements make it necessary. In the same way our underlying

unity makes cooperation possible. Such cooperation is a healthy expression of our unity, a means of wider and more effective ministry in the world and a preparatory process for a fuller unity to which God calls us. For us to live in isolation is to miss opportunity and to escape responsibility. Our understanding of truth and our convictions are something to be shared, not to be lost through fearful and careful isolation. Involvement is necessary to save us from settling in a billabong while the current of Church and world events moves on, leaving us croaking on the sidelines. The service of truth and progress calls us to venture in faith and courage, to follow our hopes and not be determined by our fears.

      Our witness will be made and our mission fulfilled, not by our age and size, but by the quality of our contribution, our spirit and life.

PAPER-BACK SERIES
HOW TO GROW AN AUSTRALIAN CHURCH--Gordon Moyes
YOUR CHURCH: WHERE TO FROM HERE?--Graeme Chapman
LETTERS FROM TERTIUS
CHURCH GROWTH PRINCIPLES--McGavran & Arn
DOWN TO PRESIDE--Gordon R. Stirling
LIVING RESPONSIBLY--E. Lyall Williams
BOOTS AND ALL--Ngaire M. Walhout
THE SECRET OF CONFIDENT LIVING--Gordon Moyes
HOW TO PREACH--Gordon R. Stirling
THE ROAD TO CERTAINTY--Bill Gaunson
COME BLESS THE LORD, No, 2--Ed. Kenneth J. Clinton
THE BOOK WITH A BLESSING--Harold G. Norris
ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM--Graeme Chapman

OTHER BOOKLETS
"THE EXPANDING CHURCH"--Don E. Stewart $1.00 plus postage
"GROUP LIFE: THE WAY AHEAD"--Helen Chapman
"LET THE CHILDREN PARTICIPATE"--Ian E. Allsop and Peter J. Burnham

RENEWAL LEAFLET SERIES
"WHEN YOU PRAY"
"WHEN YOU READ"
"WHEN YOU WORSHIP"
"WHEN YOU CARE"
"WHEN YOU WITNESS"
"WHEN YOU GIVE"

PROMOTIONAL FOLDERS
"CHURCHES OF CHRIST"
"BAPTISM"
"THE LORD'S SUPPER"
"CHURCHES OF CHRIST--WHO ARE THEY?"

PASTORAL SERIES
"THINKING OF GETTING MARRIED?"
"FACING DEATH AND BEREAVEMENT"
"A TIME FOR HEALING"
"YOU CAN'T BE HUMAN ALONE"

DISCIPLESHIP MATERIAL
For Juniors: "JESUS YOUR LORD AND FRIEND"
For Teenagers: "MY CHOICE"
For Adults: "A GUIDE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP"

      THE PAMPHLET CLUB Each year 10 issues are published of an 8-page pamphlet on VITAL ISSUES for the Church, for Society, and for the individual Christian's faith. Annual Subscription $3.00

      VITAL PUBLICATIONS are available from The Secretary, Federal Literature Department, Churches of Christ in Australia, Mrs E. M. Rankine, 5 Atkins Avenue, Glen Iris, Vic. 3146

      "CHURCHES OF CHRIST--An Interpretation" provides an introduction to a people who have sought to restore New Testament Christianity as a means to bringing into being the unity of the whole church. The life and witness of Churches of Christ have been an important part of Australian society as well as the church scene.

      As a senior statesman of Churches of Christ in Australia the author's reflections on present issues such as our relationship to the Uniting Church, Christians in Fellowship and the Charismatic Movement are important guides for us as we move into the eighties.

      E. LYALL WILLIAMS, M.A., is Principal Emeritus of the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, Victoria, the theological college conducted by the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia.

      At the end of 1973, he retired after 29 years as Principal and six years previously as lecturer. During a lifetime of ministry within Churches of Christ and in the wider church scene he has gained many friends and influenced for good hundreds of others. He is still actively involved in preaching, lecturing and counselling.