• Acknowledgments
• Foreword by Keith R. Bowes
• Contents
• Dedication
• Preface by E. L. William
• Other Vital Publications

Part I: Lyall Williams of Glen Iris by A. E. White
• Chapter 1: From the Farm to Glen Iris
• Chapter 2: Teaching Men for Ministry
• Chapter 3: The Fourth Principal
• Chapter 4: An Apostle of Unity
• Chapter 5: Partners in Faith and Love

Part II: Living Responsibly by E. L. Williams
• Chapter 1: Why I Am Still a Christian
• Chapter 2: Essential Christianity
• Chapter 3: Be a Man
• Chapter 4: A Responsible Community
• Chapter 5: Why I Go to Church
• Chapter 6: God's Trustees
• Chapter 7: On Being Truly Spiritual
• Chapter 8: Total Stewardship of Money
• Chapter 9: Whence Churches of Christ
• Chapter 10: Why I Am a Member of Churches of Christ
• Chapter 11: A Fellowship of Churches
• Chapter 12: Discerning Duty

      Published by the Federal Literature Department of Churches of Christ in Australia

      Acknowledgment is made to the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., for permission to use quotations from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946, 1952, and to Lady Collins for permission to quote from "Letters to Young Churches" by J. B. Phillips. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to the following for permission to use copyrighted material: S.C.M. Press Ltd., London, for "Edinburgh 1937' by Hugh Martin; "Evanston Report" ed. by W. A. Visser it Hooft; "The New Delhi Report" ed. by W. A. Visser it Hooft; "Adventurous Religion" by H. E. Fosdick (1926). A. P. Watt & Son, London, for "A Short History of the World" by H. G. Wells (1924). World Council of Churches, Geneva, for Central Committee Minutes".

      For many people, E. Lyall Williams needs no introduction. 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. Those of us who have had the privilege of working closely with him appreciate the great quality of his life and the keen insights of his mind.

      If you have not been acquainted with E. Lyall Williams, this book will introduce him to you. In the first part of the book, A. E. White sketches the development from boyhood to being Principal of the College of the Bible, the theological college conducted by the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia. It is a story of dedication--to high ideals, to maximum effort and above all to Jesus Christ. In the second part, Principal Williams shares some reflections concerning ideas and issues which are basic to the Christian faith. Through these you will sense something of the inner man and you will see something more of the Master whom alone he seeks to serve.

      When at the end of 1973 E. Lyall Williams retired after 29 years as Principal of the College of the Bible, and six years previously as a lecturer, the Board of Management and faculty wanted to honour him appropriately. We were delighted to learn that the Literature Department was interested in publishing a work by E. Lyall Williams in which he could share the mature thoughts that he has gained through his experience as minister, teacher and Principal. This book is the result. It has taken longer to produce than was expected, mainly because E. Lyall Williams was too busy with other aspects of the Kingdom of God to find time to write! But now you are invited to read and to reflect, not just to honour a fine Christian leader, but so that you can catch his vision and live more responsibly under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Keith R. Bowes, Principal, College of the Bible.      

IT IS MY DELIGHT TO DEDICATE THIS BOOK TO MY WIFE BERTHA LILA, WHO THROUGH ALL THE YEARS HAS SO WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND EFFICIENTLY CO-OPERATED WITH ME IN ALL ASPECTS OF MY LIFE AND MINISTRY.

      I have been requested by the Literature Department of Churches of Christ to write a small book which would reflect some of my thinking. The result is a sharing of some deep convictions which have been with me for a long time and still seem very important to me. I have never been absorbed in the merely academic but have been concerned always about the practical outworking of any truth, doctrine, theology or philosophy. In some way the word must always become flesh.

      Some of the things included in this book I have written before. In various ways they have all come through in my teaching and preaching.

      Paul's words in Ephesians 5:15, as translated by J. B. Phillips, have impressed me deeply: "Live life, then, with a due sense of responsibility, not as those who do not know the meaning and purpose of life but as those who do." They have given me a theme under which to gather together the various subjects and thoughts which I share--Living Responsibly.

      As an act of personal responsibility I want to express appreciation to my friend, K. A. Jones, who read the original draft, and to my wife, who re-typed the script ready for the printer.

E. LYALL WILLIAMS, M. A.      

      There are disadvantages in being the eldest in a large family. There are just as many disadvantages in being the youngest. When you are a small boy with six older brothers, all bigger, faster and stronger, you have to try harder and stick at it longer in order to get some recognition. Older brothers are not noted for their willingness to permit younger brothers to have easy victories in family competition.

      In Lyall Williams' home environment he learned how to take hard knocks, and he developed the capacity to keep on trying no matter how great the odds appeared to be against him.

      The courage and commitment to the goal of achievement within the family, win or lose, were the qualities that brought him successes in track sports and in the football arena. They were also qualities that marked him out as someone special in the world and in the church.

      Grandfather Williams came from a farming background in South Australia to take up land in the Kaniva district. Kaniva is in Western Victoria, on the Western Highway, about 400 kilometres north-west of Melbourne. It was never a large town and even today its population is only about 850. But it is the centre of a large and important wheat area.

      To the south is the Little Desert, over which conservationists recently fought a winning battle for preservation. To the north there was a wasteland known as the 90-mile Desert. But gradually, that desert has been subdued and opened to cultivation.

      Grandfather Williams had four sons, Arthur, John, Richard and Albert, and all except John became farmers.

      Arthur was a practical, cautious farmer who relied for success on hard work and long hours. He would take few risks with weather or crops. He knew well what hardship was and to add to his meagre income, he went shearing in the season. He could shear 110 sheep in a day--and his tools were hand shears!

      The only power apart from manpower, was horsepower. Blacksmiths were needed to shoe the horses and rim the wheels and shape the metal, so Arthur learned some blacksmithing. Careful as ever, he took lessons in the art and became fairly proficient.

      All of the vehicles were horse-drawn, and the wheat was harvested with horse-drawn strippers. The wheat was then cleaned with hand winnowers. Large families were an asset in such a high labour intensive industry. Later on there were treader winnowers which were worked by horse. Harvesters and headers arrived on the scene after Arthur had retired from the farm.

      Arthur married Annie Maria Petchell and they had a sizeable family in a district where most families were large. Of their eight boys, one died in infancy. There were also two girls.

      The boys were all keen on sport, especially football, cricket and tennis. The Bunyip cricket team was almost a Williams's family side. Father was captain and Lyall's six brothers were in the team (Lyall himself was too young at that time). Uncle Albert Williams played, and so did Uncle Fred Petchell.

      On Arthur's farm they built an asphalt cricket pitch with a net, and the boys played as long as there was daylight and in every spare moment that could be snatched from the farm work.

      Arthur's motto was "Early to bed, early to rise"--but he did not mean rise early to play.

      In the football season, even sundown did not stop the game. The boys played on in the moonlight.

      In the long dark evenings of winter there were indoor games. A log fire would be burning and some would play table tennis, table croquet, or "bobs", while others waited their turn by playing the less dramatic ludo and snakes and ladders. Sometimes, the table would be moved back and the boys would box. Even in their poorest days, money would be found for boxing gloves.

      There was usually money, also, for a football, and the footballs got bigger and better as the family fortunes

improved, until the footballs were of match size and quality. There was a homemade tennis court, and "tennis bats" were fashioned out of wood until they could afford racquets. Mother and the two girls spent their evenings knitting and sewing and mother, like most women on the farm, was an excellent cook. With a family like that, cooking and mending must have been full-time jobs.

      The Williams family was dedicated to sport rather than to academic interests, but the need for education was recognised and something was done about it. But school days were spasmodic and haphazard.

      The farm was three miles from the Sandsmere State School. Sandsmere used to be called Bunyip, and the district football and cricket teams were known by that name. For other aspects of the life of the community, the name Bunyip gradually gave way to Sandsmere, to avoid confusion with the Bunyip in Gippsland.

      The Sandsmere School was linked for a time in Lyall's school days to a school called--believe it or not--"Bleak House". It was 13 miles away from the farm. The teacher of the one-teacher school would spend two days at Sandsmere and three days at "Bleak House" one week, and the next week Sandsmere would have the three days.

      For a short period Sandsmere School was closed because there were not enough children to justify a teacher. At other times, Sandsmere was linked with another school only five miles away. The Williams boys would walk the three miles to the nearer school, and sometimes ride the longer distance to gain a full week of teaching.

      Teachers of one-teacher schools are loved more (or hated more) than teachers in the large city schools. The teacher in a one-teacher school was much more involved with the scholars and with the families of the district.

      When you talk to country folk they can usually recall the names of most of their teachers. Lyall can remember those who taught him. Miss Potella is alive in his memory because she was the first. There was Miss Pepperell, warm-hearted and kindly. Mr. Hennessy made his mark because he transported himself between the schools on a

motor bike and once gave Lyall a ride. Lindsay Spurrell was a hero, because he was a back-marker in the Stawell Gift.

      All of the Williams boys took part in country sports meetings. Lyall ran in the Anzac sports at Nhill in 1921. He was 15 years of age and won the 130, 220 and 440 yards races and earned prize money totalling nineteen pounds ten shillings. That was big money for those times and the day was a long-remembered triumph.

      Lyall never learned to swim. There were two sports his father did not like. One was bike-riding; his brother had been killed while riding a bike and Lyall was never allowed to own one. The other sport was swimming; when Lyall was a student at the Nhill Higher Elementary School a mate was drowned in a dam. After that, fear of swimming in dams further inhibited that activity.

      The Williams family grew into the Church of Christ in the Kaniva district. Grandfather Williams had brought his faith with him from South Australia. Arthur's household had regular breakfast table worship with Bible reading and a prayer. And there was church on Sundays.

      Church services were held in a wattle and daub church at Bunyip, where there was also a Sunday school. Church and Sunday school were not all that regular. Sometimes both were closed. On those occasions the family went to church at Broughton, eight miles away.

      Broughton church was Methodist and everybody--literally everybody--went to church there. There was nowhere else to go. The boys went because that was where the girls were. The girls went because of the boys. The parents went because the boys and the girls were together there. And, of course, some people went to worship.

      When the Bunyip church was holding services, A. R. Benn sometimes preached there. Mr. Benn was minister of the Kaniva church circuit for 20 years.

      A. R. Benn was a gentle, genteel man with a whimsical nature. He was also well read and scholarly and was often called upon to write special feature articles for the local

newspaper. He had great standing in the community and his dress made him conspicuous. He wore a Panama hat, attached to a cord. Sometimes he wore striped trousers. Always he wore his black, shiny alpaca coat.

      He came driving late one afternoon to the Williams' farm, the hooves of his horse making dust on the road in the late summer. Beryl Williams saw him coming and was suddenly afraid. He was not usually so far from his home with night about to fall.

      Mr. Benn stopped at the gate and walked towards the house. "I'll take your hat and coat," said Arthur Williams, and the minister gave them to him, but followed him inside without speaking to the family. This, too, was unusual, but what he had to say had first to be given to the head of the family. Charlie Williams had been killed in action in France!

      Charlie had been manning a gun with two of his mates, and the last shell, their own shell, exploded. All three were terribly wounded, but Charlie had both his legs blown off. He dragged himself 22 yards to get help and even then refused to accept treatment until he knew that others had gone to look after his mates. "That is the end of football for me," he said, and died soon after in hospital. His officer, Captain James D. Johnson, wrote to Charlie's family: "It was the bravest action in all my experience of the war." Captain Johnson recommended Charlie for the Victoria Cross, but nothing came of it. His family faced the loss with sorrow and pride.

      Mr. Benn was the only minister Lyall Williams knew in the Kaniva district. It was before him that he made his confession of faith at the age of 14 and it was by him that he was baptised.

      For a time Lyall worked in the Post Office, but was too young to sit for the exams which could have given him a permanent position. He worked for about a year in Nhill and attended the Methodist Church where Will Goldsworthy, also a member of Churches of Christ, was Sunday school superintendent. Lyall became treasurer.

      Meanwhile his brothers had been making their own way in life. Will was helped by his father to take over a nearby farm. Arthur Jr. stayed on to work the family property. Horrie went into a machinery business in Nhill. Cyril and Dick both went to the College of the Bible. A cousin, also named Dick Williams, went to the C.O.B. a little later, but died tragically in an accident whilst cycling from his student church.

      Given his background and the example of his brothers, the possibility of a call to the ministry must have been recognised by Lyall. By this time his parents had retired from the farm and Lyall was living with them in Ballarat. He was deeply involved with the Church of Christ at Dawson Street, Ballarat, and was greatly influenced by the minister, A. W. Connor, and by J. A. Wilkie, one of the fathers of the faith in Ballarat.

      When the call came to offer himself for the ministry, Lyall answered it with the enthusiasm he gave to everything he did.

      A. R. Benn, still minister at Kaniva, was one of the referees who commended Lyall as a member in good standing and suitable for the ministry.

      A new adventure was opening up for Lyall as he and Richard joined an older brother, Cyril, at Glen Iris.

      In 1925, when Lyall Williams entered the College of the Bible, there were students from New Zealand and from every State in Australia.

      Twenty-two were from Victoria, ten from South Australia, six from New Zealand, five from Queensland, four from New South Wales, three from Western Australia, and one from Tasmania.

      The total number of students was 51, including some who were to exercise considerable influence upon our churches at home and abroad. Among them were Reg Bolduan, missionary to India; I. J. Chivell, S.A. Conference Secretary and organising secretary for the 8th World Convention in Adelaide in 1970; Miss L. M. Foreman, missionary to India; R. J. H. Greenhalgh, Youth Director for N.S.W.; Howard G. Earle, Secretary of Federal Conference; V. C. Stafford, Director, Federal Board of Christian Education; and L. A. Trezise, Director, Department of Christian Education, Victoria-Tasmania.

      The 1920s were big years for the College. The war was over and the post-war period saw a return to spiritual values which had been weakened during four years of hatred and destruction.

      In the '20s, those who had delayed offering themselves for ministry because of the war were now able to answer the call. The College was now solidly established as an effective training centre for ministers in Australia and New Zealand. Then, too, in 1923, Dr. Jesse Kellems and Charles H. Richards held a series of missions throughout the country and these stimulated many to think of Christian service.

      It is worth noting that the Second World War was followed by a similar period of intense church activity associated with big evangelistic crusades, such as those conducted by Billy Graham, and the 1950s also saw a big increase in the numbers offering for the ministry.

      Another factor that had some bearing on the student enrolment was an aggressive home missions policy,

particularly in Victoria where Reg. Enniss led a committee which actively sought to establish new churches.

      By today's standards, the College, home to Lyall Williams for four years, was incredibly primitive. The bedrooms-cum-studies were crowded with three, sometimes four students. A bedstead and a mattress were supplied for each student but beyond that the students were responsible for finding their own furniture.

      A curtain across a corner of the room served as a wardrobe. There was no room heating. Radiators were not used for economic and fire risk reasons. There was steam pipe heating in the classrooms and the temperature varied from over-hot to icy-cold, usually the latter. The students improvised with cans of hot water which, at least, helped to warm their feet in winter.

      As far back as 1889, at the first inter-colonial conference of Churches of Christ, it was suggested that Melbourne should be a centre for training ministers for the growing work.

      J. K. Henshilwood, A. B. Maston and G. B. Moysey held classes under the name of the Victorian Biblical Institute. Other classes were conducted by Joseph Pittman and W. C. Morro. Eventually this work grew into the Australian College of the Bible, led by James Johnston. The classes were held in the evenings in the Lygon Street Church, and graduates became leaders or church ministers.

      But the need for full-time training was evident and the 1906 Federal Conference resolved that a college be established in Melbourne.

      The College began in Lygon Street Church, and then moved to a two-storey building in Rathdowne Street, Carlton, for a time and then moved back to Lygon Street. H. G. Harward and James Johnston were leaders, but when Johnston left, Harward continued as Principal.

      New premises were purchased at Glen Iris, described as a "14-roomed dwelling and stables". It was attached to 11 acres of land, and in the records of the Malvern Council of 1891 was rated on a value of two thousand pounds, which was a large sum for those days.

      It had been owned by a prominent Methodist and for a period is thought to have actually been owned by the Methodist Church. But in 1909 it was in the possession of R. Campbell Edwards, a member of the original Board of Management of the College of the Bible. Campbell Edwards sold it to the Board for one thousand five hundred pounds, which made it a very good buy.

      In 1910, the students moved into a building which must have seemed spacious after their earlier cramped quarters. The students could now live in. Smaller detached buildings were used as dormitories.

      However, the pressure for even more living room was irresistible and a new building with classrooms and dormitories was erected in 1912. Over the years there have been many additions and modifications but this two-storey red brick edifice is still the main college building.

      One of the outside dormitory blocks in 1925 was a three-room wooden structure known as the "Slums". One of them, room number 14, was allocated to Dick (R. L.) Williams and his brother, Lyall. When they entered it they found that it had been used as a paint store over the vacation. The brothers moved out the paint and went to the storeroom and obtained beds. Lucky students might even find a chair or two. That was all. Any other furniture had to be bought, scrounged, borrowed or constructed. As Mr. Harward said about the College, "It is no place for those seeking an easy life."

      The College was keen on physical fitness. There was a large gymnasium and a physical education teacher came one hour a week to teach gymnastics.

      Transport to the city was by train. There was a general exodus at noon on Saturdays as many students set off for their country churches--as far away as Wedderburn, Drummond, Dunolly, Bet Bet and Colac.

      One "wealthy" student owned a motor bike, and two others had bicycles. None of them had a car.

      Football, cricket and tennis were popular and important. Inter-house sports competitions between the "Glens" and the "Irises" began about 1926 and Lyall was

captain of the Irises. There was also a track and field competition for an individual points system and Lyall was "sports champion" for the four years he was in college. These sporting activities included matches played against other colleges and have continued until now.

      The common-room in 1925 was the centre of student life and featured a table tennis table. It had been a billiard room that was acquired for the College by Reg. Enniss. Later on, under the pressure for more accommodation, the room was converted into a dormitory. At least eight students lived in it. Its next change was into a chapel and many men conducted their first public worship services there before their fellow students and the Principal. The presence of A. R. Main was, unintentionally, most discouraging. Students often claimed that the most dreaded experience in college life was to lead in chapel worship.

      Those on the receiving end found the variety and the sincerity of the daily worship a stimulating start for the day. The singing was a delight. There was always a sufficient number of good strong voices to nullify those that were weak or toneless. The Principal was never heard or seen to sing!

      When the Chown Memorial Chapel was built, the former common room's function was again changed. Divided into sections, one section became a hospital, one a storeroom, and two others were dormitories. Eventually, when Lyall Williams was Principal and a change in life style saw the advent of married students, the old billiard room became the first married quarters provided by the college for a student with a family.

      In Lyall's student days, it was rare indeed to find married students. If there were any, they lived away from the College. Single students who thought of marriage had to obtain permission from the Board of Management. The Board was not against marriage, but there was a fairly strong conviction that in those days of economic stress, study and romance would not mix, even if sanctified by marriage.

      Of course, romance did often come to trouble or delight the students. There was a so-called "bachelors' club" which was usually strong in February but it was diminished in numbers and conviction by November.

      Another thing that made the 'twenties a good time for the College was the strength of the faculty. The four men, all part time, were men of academic distinction and strong Christian conviction. They made a deep impression on Lyall and were undoubtedly influential in motivating him to set a goal of academic endeavour. There have been many, like Lyall, who entered college with little education, but had the capacity to develop quickly and gain high honours. There must have been many others in our churches with similar potential, but never had the opportunity to develop it.

      The Principal, Alexander Russell Main, was born in Scotland in 1876 and came as a lad to Australia. A. B. Maston found him at the church at Drummond, Victoria, and marked him as a young man of promise. He encouraged Main to come to Melbourne, found him a job at the Austral Printing and Publishing Company, and the Scot became a part-time student at the Melbourne University. There he gained high distinction, especially in philosophy in which school he won the Hastie Prize.

      After a short time of service to churches in Victoria and Queensland (he wrote the Queensland section of the Jubilee History of Churches of Christ which Maston edited), he returned to Melbourne and started his long career at the College of the Bible by becoming a lecturer in the second term of its first year in 1907.

      Main succeeded H. G. Harward as Principal in 1911, and became editor of "The Australian Christian" in 1914. He was to serve in each of these positions for 27 years, leaving the college in 1938 and the journal in 1941.

      In the 1920s, Main was at the height of his powers. He was able and scholarly and his capacity for clear and concise lecturing was sharpened by his journalistic work. He was an effective communicator, particularly in the studies of New Testament and Logic.

      Many students found Main remote and not easy to approach, but those who knew him well spoke of the very attractive personality beneath the outer reserve. That reserve was not lowered easily in the college community where he ran, as they say at sea, a very tight ship! He did not take kindly to displays of boisterous behaviour by the students.

      Thomas Henry Scambler came, as did Main, from Stephen Cheek country, being born near Newstead, Victoria in 1879. After service in the churches in Victoria and Western Australia, he felt the need for better equipment for ministry and went to the U.S.A., as did many of our men in pre-Glen Iris days. He gained the B.A. degree at Drake University, where one of his fellow students was Jesse Bader.

      Back in Australia, he qualified for the Diploma of Education and continued in the pastoral ministry. He earned a great reputation as a speaker. In 1921, he was invited to join the faculty at Glen Iris.

      Mr. Scambler was a warm and friendly person, had a sparkling sense of humour, and related well to the students. If he lacked the deep scholarship of Main, he ranged wide in his interests and was very closely in touch with the world around him. Very sensitive, he was to be deeply hurt by criticism which was often cruel and unfair. But he was always positive and gracious, and he set before the students the ideals of a Christian gentleman.

      Lyall Williams found a kinship with Mr. Scambler even in his student days, and it later blossomed into a warm personal friendship. They shared ecumenical interests and activities and were both deeply committed to the plea of Churches of Christ for unity.

      The third lecturer was Randall T. Pittman. He was the first student to become a member of the faculty, the first of many. He was a member of a talented, cultured and honoured family, a family with roots deep in the history of our churches. Randall Pittman was a scholar teacher, author, organist, hymn-writer, co-founder and long-time editor of the Austral Graded Lessons for Sunday

Schools. He was among the first of the students when the College began at Carlton and went on to graduate with honours from the Melbourne University. He also worked for the Austral Printing Company. In 1915 he began as a lecturer at Glen Iris. He was to serve there for 49 years.

      He was a specialist in New Testament Greek and in ancient history and sometimes his students felt that he was more at home in the past than in the present. He certainly loved the Bible and the people of the Bible lands.

      In the early years of the 20th century, when the higher and destructive criticisms of liberal German theologians were making inroads into the faith of many Christians, Randall Pittman was a staunch upholder of the faith in the tradition of the Restoration Movement.

      In comparing Scambler with Pittman, Gordon Andrews once said, "R. T. Pittman is the man with the microscope and T. H. Scambler is the man with the telescope." Both were needed to give perspective to their students.

      One day, there was a bit of fun in the classroom which resulted in a typical student analysis of the personalities of the three Bible subject lecturers.

      The students were accustomed to take cushions into the classrooms to soften the hard seats or maybe to warm them in winter. On this day, someone threw a cushion at another student and soon the room was full of flying cushions. One landed against the closed door. When the bell rang for class, the cushion lay there unnoticed. Principal Main entered and saw it. He assumed that a student had placed it there deliberately, with the intention of tripping him as he entered. He asked that the perpetrator come to him and confess his wrongdoing and then he left the classroom and did not deliver that particular lecture. Five students who had been throwing cushions and might have been responsible, went to him and, one after another, said that he had been throwing cushions but the cushion in the doorway did not belong to him. The Principal then said these were not the persons he wanted to see. He wanted to see the one he regarded as guilty.

      Cyril Williams felt inspired to rewrite the story of the Three Bears: "As the cushion was lying in the doorway, there first came the big main bear. He looked at the cushion and said, 'This must be the work of the paedo-baptists!' Then came the middle sized scrambler bear. He looked at the cushion and said 'No Christian gentleman could have done this!' Then came the little pitty bear. He looked at the cushion and said, 'Surely this is the work of the destructive critics'!" Students the world over have their own way of meeting and evaluating their crises!

      The secular teacher, making good the deficiencies in the students early education, was Joseph S. Taylor, B.A. He was a Presbyterian and remained in membership with that church all his days despite his great love for the students and for the tradition of Churches of Christ. Like Main, he was born in Scotland and, for this or for other good reasons, had the deepest appreciation of Principal Main as a teacher and a writer. In his English classes he would often quote from Main's editorials in the "Christian". Taylor was a college character, a real Mr Chips. He had a great enthusiasm for all of the subjects he taught and found it hard to understand students who did not share that enthusiasm. He took all of life very seriously and was assured that his generation was on the fringe of great things. "Gentlemen," he would say to each new crop of students, "you have the ball at your feet!"

      He had a great feeling for English literature and when his strong Scottish voice rang to the rafters with the agony of "The Ancient Mariner" only the dullest of students would be unmoved.

      Every student of those days had stories to tell of J. S. Taylor. One, who shall be nameless, had an exaggerated view of his own performances, but received only 44 marks out of 100 for an English examination. He was persuaded by a confidence man posing as a friend, to refer the paper back to J.S.T. with the suggestion that the master may have made a mistake in giving that mark. Mr. Taylor didn't have much of a sense of humour, but he did have a conscientious and serious regard to the obligation for

correct marking. So he took the paper and went over it slowly and very carefully. Then, looking over his glasses, said, "You're quite right, Mr. --------, I did make a mistake. This paper is not worth 44 marks, it is only worth 38!" And he amended the mark to 38 on the spot!

      Lyall Williams threw himself into his studies with the same energy he gave to sport, and soon his name appeared regularly in the term honours lists printed in the "Christian".

      He was particularly friendly with Ern Gray, Reg. Bolduan, Jack Chivell, Cam Payne, Viv. Stafford, and Jim Methven. These men formed a close group with Dick and Lyall Williams.

      A very important part of the training of students at Glen Iris is found in the student churches. A New Zealander said on one occasion, "This can be said about most of the men from Glen Iris. They all know how to run a church." Most Glen Iris students give leadership in churches throughout their course.

      In 1926, Lyall Williams was student minister at Hartwell, along with L. R. H. Beaumont. Then he spent two years at Boronia as a college student and a further year there as a university student. As did most students, Lyall established friendships in those days which are among the most enduring of his life.

      Marriages may or may not be made in Heaven, but some of them get a good start at Sunday school picnics.

      Ern Gray, a fellow student who was serving with the Camberwell church, took his friend, Lyall, to Camberwell's Sunday school picnic on Melbourne Cup Day in 1926. There Lyall met Lila Brown.

      The Brown family were foundation members of the Camberwell church and Lila attended the Sunday school when it met in the home of Campbell Edwards. Lyall soon became a regular visitor to the Brown home.

      After Lyall graduated from the College of the Bible in 1928, he continued to serve with the church at Boronia and he enrolled in the Faculty of Arts at the Melbourne University in 1929. In January, 1930, Lyall and Lila were married. Lyall was awarded the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1934, and the degree of Master of Arts in 1935.

      After leaving Boronia, they served at Hawthorn until the middle of 1936, when the call came to minister with the church at Ponsonby Road in Auckland, New Zealand.

      They were not to stay long in the Dominion. In 1938, A. R. Main retired after his long term as Principal, and his natural successor was T. H. Scambler.

      To fill the gap in the faculty, the Board of Management, with the wholehearted approval of both Mr. Main and the new Principal, invited Lyall to come back home. The church in Auckland graciously gave Lyall permission to terminate his ministry and in 1939 he was back at Glen Iris, as a lecturer.

      The work-load of our college lecturers has always been far too heavy. It is not such a grinding task today, but too much is still expected. In earlier days, the tasks allocated to the faculty were most daunting. Certainly, the United States counterparts were astonished at the work our men were asked to do.

      The numerical smallness of our churches in Australia and therefore our financial weakness, has always made

the work of our college lecturers more demanding than that in the U.S.A., and when an exchange lectureship was being considered with Dr. A. T. De Groot taking Lyall's place at Glen Iris for a term while Lyall did the same for De Groot in the U.S., the disparity between the two lecture loads became very evident.

      Lyall's subjects when he took up his duties in 1939 were Church History, Christian Doctrine, Logic, Comparative Religion, Homiletics, Religious Education, the History and Witness of Churches of Christ, and Economics--the latter to assist students to meet secular requirements.

      In addition to his college work, Lyall was also part-time minister at the Ivanhoe Church! In spite of the pressures, Lyall gave good service to his church. He was keen to preach and to be involved in pastoral visitation.

      Now a colleague, Lyall welcomed his opportunity to work with Scambler, Pittman and Taylor. They understood and appreciated one another and there was a mateship in the small masters' room that was warm and stimulating.

      These were not to be easy years for Principal Scambler. To start with, he was in the chair of the beloved A. R. Main. Main may not have had close personal relationships with a large number of folk in the churches, but as editor of "The Australian Christian" he was regarded throughout the brotherhood as the spokesman for our position. No other editor, before or since, has used the journal's editorial columns to such effect in presenting our doctrinal position. Indeed, when he died, the tribute in the paper he served so long was headed 'Defender of the Faith". His book, "First Principles", was widely known and often used as a textbook in churches.

      It is always hard to follow someone who has been on the job for a long time, if that someone has imposed a strong personality on his office.. And, already, there was a growing suspicion of Principal Scambler's emphasis on Christian unity and his openness to new avenues of Christian thought. Those who knew of Scambler's wholehearted commitment to our movement were at a loss to

understand how dialogue with other Christians should be held to compromise our plea, especially having regard to the place the call to unity has always had with our people.

      Scambler was chairman of the Churches of Christ Christian Union Committee, was involved in programmes with other churches, and was greatly respected by their leaders, especially by those of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches. He was a welcome speaker at inter-church gatherings. Although there was some criticism of this involvement, there was never any responsible charge that Principal Scambler had in any way compromised the position of Churches of Christ or that he had abandoned any of their principles.

      The new Principal was also a defender of the faith and held public debates with a Rationalist leader and with a spokesman for the Seventh Day Adventists. Those of our members who heard these debates were convinced that he won the contests easily and that he conducted himself with Christian grace and dignity.

      He joined the Left Book Club, a meeting and discussion point for socialistically minded folk ranging from out and out Communists to mild Christian liberals. Scambler was there because he believed it was in the interests of the church. In an early session he attended, one speaker strongly denounced the church, making specific charges. Scambler waited until he finished, then rose and said, "Our friend who spoke is entitled to think what he likes about the church, but he is not entitled to be wrong in his facts. These are the facts . . ."

      After that, the wild attacks against the church gave place to reasoned discussion and T.H.S. was listened to with respect, even if most of those present did not share his religious convictions.

      These facts about Scambler are important because Lyall Williams shared his Principal's interest in and concern for Christian unity. He believed that dialogue with other churches and even those opposed to the church was desirable. Truth should speak whenever it had the opportunity.

      Williams followed Scambler in the Left Book Club. One of this group named Edmunds was working, years later, with a Glen Iris graduate in a science laboratory at the Melbourne University. When Edmunds learned that his class companion was a member of Churches of Christ, he said that he once knew a member of that church ". . . named Williams, and I met him at the Left Book Club." Edmunds said that although he himself was not a Christian, he respected Williams as someone who closely followed Jesus Christ and he had the highest admiration for him as a man of truth and honour.

      Near the end of the College year in 1944, Principal Scambler died suddenly, and in 1945 Lyall Williams became the fourth Principal of the College of the Bible.

      The promotion came unexpectedly, but Mr. Williams was equipped by academic training, by commitment to the gospel, and by a genuine concern for the ministry for the new task.

      He saw in his students men who would share the prophetic vision of Jesus. He said that when Jesus faced temptation, our Lord had to choose between the "immediate and the ultimate." The vast majority of people gave themselves to things that are immediate, but Jesus resolved to give Himself to the things that are ultimate.

      "The essential vision of Christianity is the vision of ultimates. People are commonly possessed with the immediate. The evidence of this is the all-possessing secularism which has impoverished the world and condemned it to a veritable hell, the emphasis upon material prosperity, the feverish concern for social status, the enthusiasm for superficial traditions and standards, and the prevalence of prudence before principles.

      "The pressure of the immediate is so great that it is most difficult to keep the vision of the ultimates, but the mission of the church and the salvation of the world depend upon this."

      This statement was made in 1944 as President of the Victorian Conference of Churches of Christ, but it indicated

that he was deeply committed to a gospel of salvation which had its area of social concern. Before phrases like "quality of life" and "the third world" had become slogans, Lyall Williams was insisting that a gospel of love was only half proclaimed if it ignored the physical misery of more than half the world.

      It was not long, however, before some of the criticisms aimed at Lyall's predecessor were now levelled at the new Principal. Yet he came to his new task with a deep sense of responsibility both to Christ and to the brotherhood.

      His first word to the churches as principal declared both his faith and his purpose. "The only answer to the world's dire need is the gospel of Christ as Saviour and Lord, accepted by the reason, by the heart, and in the total life of man. He is the answer--the only answer . . .

      "If it be asked whether the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, grounds young men in deep convictions concerning the facts of human sin, the reality of God, the reality of Christ as Lord and Saviour, and man's need of salvation through the gospel, the answer is an emphatic 'yes'. One conviction possesses all who teach in our college, that the whole purpose of preaching is to win and build men into the knowledge and likeness of Jesus Christ. If that be not the aim and achievement in training men for the ministry, all our labour is in vain. We do not merely teach these things, we 'thunder' them!"

      He not only taught, he practised his own teaching. Preachers were in short supply in the latter period of World War II and for some time the Principal helped by taking regular services at Malvern and Surrey Hills. Later, he assisted specifically with preaching ministries at Berwick, Boronia, The Patch and Knoxfield. He was always paid for these ministries, but the money he received was put aside to help with some special cause, or for some needy students. It was never used for himself or for his family. While Principal, Lyall continued with a full teaching programme, and the heavy load he carried made him plan

and work for the day when the Glen Iris faculty would be full-time. This goal was achieved before he retired.

      In addition to teaching, the Principal had a vital administrative function. He was involved, with the secretary (or vice-principal) in the day-to-day running of the college and was closely involved with the students in mapping out the most suitable courses.

      In his continuing and general oversight of the students there is naturally a pastoral concern. No principal has been able to relate equally well with every student, but he has to accept the role of pastor and sometimes take the place of parents.

      The men who served the college tended to stay for long periods in office.. Lyall Williams was the fourth principal, and the present Chairman of the Board, Frank P. Chipperfield, is the fourth chairman since the college commenced in 1906. The others were F. G. Dunn (1906-1914), Robert Lyall (1914-1943) and W. A. Kemp (1944-1965).

      The college has been equally frugal in its number of secretaries. In most cases of course, the work was much more than secretarial. It was concerned with promoting college interests, in holding the ideal of the ministry before young people in the churches, in fund raising, and in sometimes living in close relationship with the students as housemaster.

      The first Organising Secretary was C. M. Gordon (1911-1913). Next was Reg. Enniss, who served from 1914 to 1924. Then came Fred T. Saunders, who had had some doubts about the college, but who was diligent and thorough and gave strong support until 1947. Chas. Hardie was the Board Secretary from 1906 to 1928, and W. C. Craigie, the first Treasurer, served from 1906 to 1936, and doubled as college photographer.

      Keith A. Jones, when Director of Christian Education for the Churches of Christ, resided at the College as housemaster. In 1948, he returned to the College as secretary and housemaster, and for 20 years gave outstanding service.

      Lyall Williams and Keith Jones were close friends and they knew, from their own experiences as Glen Iris students, some of the hardships imposed on students. They resolved to make the college as comfortable and efficient possible within the limits of the available finance.

      Some of the improvements effected during the term of Principal Williams with Keith Jones as secretary included the new dining room, modernisation of the kitchen, the building of the Principals' Memorial Wing and its later conversion to married quarters, the renovations to the old dormitories, together with new furniture and furnishings.

      A property was purchased opposite the College (not Ludbrook House) and this also housed married students. When it was sold the money received largely paid for four new flats in the college grounds.

      A ladies' hostel had been acquired in 1923. Dedicated women who cared for the lady students included Mrs. Fleming McDonald, Miss Priscilla Ludbrook, Mrs. Price and Mrs. Curtis. When the principal's new residence in Elm Road was built in 1952, the principal's old residence was renovated, the ladies hostel sold, and the lady students and Mrs. Curtis moved into Elm Road. Numbers of lady students fluctuated, one year there was only one, but it was the changes in the buildings and in life-style that made a separate girls' hostel an anachronism. Lady students today are a part of the normal and total college life.

      These days of partnership between Williams and Jones were significant in preparing the college for that other great dream in the heart of Lyall Williams, that some day the college would be able to have a faculty of full-time specialist lecturers.

      There had been a long line of dedicated part-time principals and lecturers. Harward, Main, Scambler and Williams were all part-time. When Lyall Williams began lecturing, Principal Scambler, R. T. Pittman and E. L. Williams each received four pounds ten shillings per week. Among the part-time lecturers were J. E. Brooke, Thomas

Hagger, W. R. Hibburt, A. W. Ladbrook, H. J. Patterson, A. W. Stephenson, C. G. Taylor, L. A. Trezise, R. L. Williams, A. E. White and S. H. Wilson.

      It was not to discount their work that the target for full-time lecturers was set. They had their day, as in earlier days part-time preachers were all that our young struggling churches could afford. The College had to face new and different standards. New subjects were being designed to meet new conditions. The new battles of the faith were being fought in a shrinking world against new forms of philosophy and materialism and scepticism. More specialisation was necessary and, of course, it had long been recognised that men who already had full-time demands in areas apart from the College, could hardly give to the College the priorities which the training of ministers demanded.

      It had not been practicable in earlier days to think of helping men of the faculty to equip themselves for special tasks. Now it was possible, and Principal Williams not only took strong initiatives in working towards that ideal, he even helped to finance it out of his own resources.

      Keith Bowes, while still a student at the College, was clearly marked out for academic and Christian leadership. He was encouraged to go to Yale University in 1962. Kenneth J. Clinton, being groomed to succeed R. T. Pittman in the fields of Old Testament studies and New Testament Greek also went to Yale 1965-1966. The latest to go overseas for training and experience was Bill Tabbernee in 1972-1973.

      When Keith Jones relinquished the office of secretary in 1968, G. R. Stirling was called from Canberra to the new office of Vice-principal, which incorporated the duties of secretary, housemaster and lecturer. Principal Williams retired in 1973 and Dr. Keith Russell Bowes succeeded him as Principal. The physical aspects of the College had been changed almost beyond recognition since 1948 and now there was a full-time faculty (almost! Bill Tabbernee in 1976 was still involved in studies at the Melbourne University.

      His place was partly taken by an unpaid part-time lecturer, E. Lyall Williams!)

      Mr Williams and Dr. Bowes both saw the need for changes in the curriculum and in teaching and study procedures, and they worked closely together in formulating a new curriculum with the same basic evangelistic concern and with the same devotion to the Scriptures which had inspired our fathers in the faith to call our ministers' training centre the College of the Bible.

      Colleges tend to be judged according to their products. This is fair enough, but it is not fair to judge a college or a faculty on the basis of a few individuals or a few failures. It is easy enough to name some who didn't fulfill their own or their churches' hopes for them in the ministry, but it is also easy to find many that have earned for Glen Iris a place of high distinction in the story of the restoration movement in Australia.

      Evangelists such as E. C. Hinrichsen, G. T. Fitzgerald, K. A. Macnaughton, Jack Bond and Gordon Moyes were trained there. Roy Coventry, Edna Vawser and Hazel Skuce went from Glen Iris to India, Ethel Bentley to W.A. to help start our first ever Aborigines Mission there. Will and Grace Waterman, Albert and Eva Anderson, and Dr. Ray Killmier went to China, Frank and Win Beale to the New Hebrides and New Guinea, Harold Finger to the New Hebrides. Social service leaders also came from Glen Iris: Will Atkin in Victoria, Charles Cole in N.S.W., Albert Jones in South Australia, Eric Hart in Queensland, and George Smith in Western Australia, are all Glen Iris men. Leaders in Christian education from the College of the Bible included V. C. Stafford, W. R. Hibburt, Roy Greenhalgh, L. A. Trezise, Harold Greenwood, Gordon Stirling and Allan Male. A. W. Stephenson, C. G. Taylor and A. E. White served as brotherhood journal editors after their training at the College. These are just a few names. There are many others who have given distinguished Christian service in many areas of the church and community.

      Of course it needs to be said that until 1942 Glen Iris was the only college for Churches of Christ in Australia, but it has produced men and women of evangelistic concern and leadership ability because of leadership given by men such as E. Lyall Williams. Many of those named were taught and influenced by him. Criticism there has been of the College--and strong criticism. Many believe that the Bible College of New

South Wales was commenced partly (there were, of course, other good reasons) because of a suspicion that Principal Scambler had an inadequate view of the Bible, was not sufficiently interested in our churches' plea for the restoration of New Testament Christianity and that in his enthusiasm for Christian unity he was compromising our position. What a college principal is and does, or is thought to be and do, can affect the standing of his college among the churches.

      The College of the Bible was one of the co-operating churches in the Melbourne College of Divinity. The M.C.D. was an examining body, had no relationship with the students and did not provide lectures which were internal to each college. Yet even this association, entered into to improve academic standards, was the subject of protests and the College of the Bible withdrew.

      There was such a bias against any form of co-operation with other churches that T. H. Scambler said, "We are not ready for the doctrine of unity, we have to adopt the spirit of unity."

      If there were errors in the positions held by other churches with regard to the ordinances and the ministry, T. H. Scambler thought it better to discuss them and not build higher and higher fences against other Christians. The love that churches were expected to show to the world should also be extended to others of the same faith. "It is better that error flourish," said Scambler, "than that love should fail." This was taken out of its context and made to appear as though T.H.S. was not concerned with truth, whereas he was giving love its proper place in "speaking the truth in love."

      Lyall Williams, as the teacher of ministers, was subjected to the same careful scrutiny, and the charges made against his predecessor were also made against him. But in dealing with this situation he maintained a high standard of Christian grace, never losing patience even when he was misjudged or misquoted.

      He, too, was thought to be unsound about the Bible. But those who read his book, "A Biblical Approach to Unity" will find that this charge cannot be sustained. But sometimes his very care about words when he was defining his position brought him into further conflict with his Christian brethren.

      For example, he could not, when challenged, declare that "the Bible is the Word of God". Such a statement suggested that the Bible is a totally inerrant book, coming direct from God, through His servants, but kept inerrant by His Spirit. But the Bible has human elements and some human failings. Not all of it can be equated with God's will.

      But Williams could not say instead that "the Bible contains the Word of God". That limits and weakens its authority. He prefers to say that "the Bible bears witness to the Word of God". He accepts its essential truths, that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, that He died on the cross for our sins, that He rose from the dead, shares our life in the church through the Spirit, and that Christ will come again according to the Scriptures.

      E. L. Williams, despite some allegations to the contrary, could hardly be said to fail as a restorationist. After all, one of his three main emphases in teaching was in the field of church history and it was he who introduced the subject "The History and Witness of Churches of Christ". He incorporated much of this material in his book, "A Biblical Approach to Unity", and also delivered lectures on the same theme on a lecture tour in the U.S.A. in colleges including Bethany and Lynchburg, and Phillips, Butler, Texas, and Drake Universities.

      In his public addresses he is at his best in presenting the place of Churches of Christ among the churches and delights in defending our position regarding the meaning of salvation, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and the nature of the church and its role in the world.

      Lyall Williams, however, by the accident of time (or maybe by time's design), found in his early years as Principal, that his involvement in the ecumenical movement demanded a greater identification with that movement or a denial of it. In conscience Mr. Williams was constrained to identify himself with it. This personal decision could not fail to involve the college and there is no doubt that some of his students were influenced by him.

      The World Council of Churches, the Australian Council of Churches, and the Victorian Council of Churches were all vital issues for the churches in those years and E.L.W. championed them all. Roy Coventry said to him, "You are the apostle of unity", which maybe overstates it, but he was certainly one of unity's strongest advocates.

      The Evangelical Fellowship in Victoria was established as a protest against the World Council of Churches, and because of E. L. Williams' involvement, the college, by association, was also regarded with suspicion. This deeply disturbed Mr. Williams, for there were men and women in the Fellowship for whom he had the highest respect and regard as Christians. He deeply regretted that they could not share his conviction that we should welcome the new mood of unity among the churches.

      Williams welcomed the ecumenical movement as an opportunity to work with other churches in areas where we were too small to work alone. Then, too, the movement gave Churches of Christ the chance to express its point of view on doctrinal and ethical issues.

      The ecumenical movement is a meeting ground where churches can share their insights and concerns, and where Christians can accept each other in spite of their differences. It lifts us out of our isolation, said Williams. "Isolation is dangerous, distorting and dwarfing. It is the most perilous thing in life for people, communities and churches."

      When churches meet together they provide an area of responsible contribution. "If we are so sure that we have

something to give, we ought to give it. Here is our opportunity to make our plea known in the highest places. It is also an area of responsible listening. We have to be prepared to listen as well as to contribute."

      Lyall Williams certainly contributed. He was a member of the Australian Commission for Inter-Church Aid from 1951 as its first chairman, and chairman of its executive from 1962 to 1966. When the Commission transferred to Sydney, in the Victorian Committee for InterChurch Aid (now World Christian Action), Lyall continued as deputy chairman until 1976 when the office was terminated. For many years Lyall served as a representative of Churches of Christ in the annual meetings of the Australian Council of Churches.

      E. L. Williams was a delegate to the World Council of Churches Assemblies at Evanston, 1954, and New Delhi, 1961, and was a representative at the W.C.C. Executive meeting in Australia in 1956.

      He became a member of the Victorian Committee for the Promotion of Christian Union in the Victorian Conference of Churches of Christ and was its chairman from 1945 to 1972. From 1948 this committee served also as the Federal Department of Christian Union.

      He was President of the Victorian Conference of Churches of Christ, 1944-1945, and President of the Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia, 1950-1952. He also served as a member of the Central Study Committee of the World Convention of Churches of Christ.

      A resolution of the Victorian Conference of Churches of Christ, and also of the Methodist and Presbyterian Assemblies, urged fraternal visits to "Iron Curtain" countries. As a result, in 1959, six Australian churchmen, representing the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist Churches and Churches of Christ, visited churches in Russia, Czechoslovakia, and China. Lyall was the chosen representative of Churches of Christ. As a lecturer at the College of the Bible, he specialised

in three areas--theology, church history and Christian ethics.

      In theology he made a valuable contribution in a field where our churches in Australia have been weak, that is in systematic theology. He had the facility for interpreting the thinking of modern theologians like Barth, Tillich, Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr, and for opening doors of progressive scholarship to successive generations of students.

      As seen above, his work in church history, while it covered the wide areas of the church's origins and development dealt specifically with the issues which Churches of Christ need to face in the present situation. Also, he was concerned to equip the students with the capacity to interpret the witness of Churches of Christ to other churches.

      In the field of ethics he insisted that a Christian was obliged to make ethical choices in the world and he related the principles of Christ to our modern economic system, to the State, to communism, to war (he is unashamedly a pacifist), the family, and employment, and social relationships.

      In speaking about international peaceful relationships, Lyall Williams has always opposed the idea that peace can be assured or promoted simply by building up armies and weapons to deter potential aggressors.

      In an address on World Community Day in 1952, Principal Williams said, "Peace must be built. It is not a natural growth; we drift into war, but we do not drift into peace. Peace will come only if we think with persuasion, and with purpose we build for it.

      "Peace can be built only on Christian foundations. Peace cannot be built on force. It is sometimes thought that if we are strong, others will be afraid to attack us; that to have peace we must prepare for war. History has shown us that preparation for war is no way to secure peace.

      "Fear is no foundation for peace; it is an all too easy

prelude to war because fear leads us to the very thing of which we are afraid.

      "All this means that if we Christian people are to contribute to peace we must be radical--we must be prepared to take ways that have never been taken before, to say and do things and pay the price for that which has never been said, done or paid for before. Christianity is an adventurous principle, and unless we are ready to live dangerously we shall not build for peace.

      "In the recent budget presented to Federal Parliament, provision was made for 200 million pounds expenditure on defence. No budget in all the world (as far as I know) provides any expenditure for peace, while millions are provided for defence. There is always a Ministry of War, but never a Ministry of Peace--such a Ministry as would surely be necessary if a government is to build for peace.

      "To build a lasting peace there must be an advance in understanding, friendship and goodwill between nations. Governments need to spend money on this."

      Williams would have agreed with Alexander Campbell, who said that all wars are claimed to be defensive wars. Even Napoleon, said Campbell, declared that he had never waged an aggressive war, every battle he fought was one of defence!

      But pacifists did not achieve much. The people seem to think that when there is no war, there is no need to worry about peace, and when the enemy is massing on the borders it is too late.

      But he was listened to with respect by thoughtful Christians of many denominations on many issues affecting faith and life and in the field of theological teaching he earned the admiration of his fellow teachers in other colleges.

      The Master of Ormond College (Presbyterian), Dr. J. D. McCaughey, said, "I have been associated with Principal Williams ever since I came to Australia. First I knew him as a theological teacher and was immediately struck by the wide range of his interests and by his competence in so many fields. Where theological teachers have been

gathered together he has usually been present and made a valuable contribution. Perhaps I should say that one of his outstanding qualities here has been his wisdom. He is not easily carried away by the latest fashion. Nevertheless, he is always up-to-date. I have been impressed at the way in which he has encouraged young men of his own denomination to obtain further theological training overseas. His work on the Scholarships Committee of the World Council of Churches Inter-Church Aid Department has been quite noteworthy."

      Lyall Williams was a member of the Melbourne Theological Teachers' Association and of the Melbourne College of Divinity, which the College of the Bible rejoined in 1964 as a co-opted member under the leadership of E. L. Williams.

      In 1972 a change of constitution provided for full membership of Churches of Christ in the M.C.D. and Lyall Williams was active when arrangements were being made for the M.C.D. to become a lecturing body and to prepare students for the degree of Bachelor of Theology.

      The pressure of an over-full programme of teaching prevented Lyall from doing the research and the writing that might otherwise have been expected from his pen, and he wrote only one book other than this one. But he contributed regularly to church journals and he produced valuable pamphlets for use in churches and camps, such as "Sanity or Starvation", "God and Caesar", "The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man", "Biblical Authority Today", "Fulfilling our Mission". "Why Churches of Christ?" "Reflections on New Delhi" "The Problem of Interpretation" "The Pillars of Unity" "The Word of God" and "The Ministry and the Sacraments".

      Principal Williams was recognised overseas as well as in Australia for his splendid contribution to the field of ministerial training. It came as no surprise when it was proposed that an American University grant him an honorary doctorate for his service to the Restoration Movement. It was also not surprise when Lyall Williams refused the honour. He did not want a degree which had not been

earned. Those who knew of his work felt that he had truly earned such recognition.

      Lyall was also reluctant to accept a World Convention Citation for outstanding Christian work. But he was persuaded that he should not refuse this honour from his brethren. He did not seek it, but he had earned it.

      For this award, nominations are submitted and judges from many countries review them, and five are selected. In 1970 at the 8th World Convention in Adelaide, Principal Williams received a Citation for "his leadership in educational life in Australia and for the service given to the College of the Bible in Australia."

      Lila Williams was no passive partner. She supported and out of an equal commitment she encouraged her husband in all of the many enterprises of the kingdom of God.

      She took naturally to the life of the manse in a time when the wife of a minister was expected to take a leading role in the work of the women of the church. In these days, women of the manse are not, because of their husband's office, thrust into positions of leadership. They, like other women of the church, serve according to their ability and according to their own choice.

      Lila welcomed the opportunity to serve. Her own outstanding abilities soon gained her a reputation for competence and dedication. At her first church, Hawthorn, Vic., she accepted the position of President of the Mission Band, and also that of President of the Ladies' Aid.

      It was a good place to start, for the women at Hawthorn were particularly competent and dedicated. Lila is quiet and unassuming, but she does have a strong sense of responsibility and a willingness to spend herself in Christian service. While not seeking executive positions, she never refused an opportunity to serve.

      In her brief stay in New Zealand she put her experience at Hawthorn to good effect at the Ponsonby Road church in Auckland, and Lila was able to introduce many new ideas across the Tasman.

      On her return to Victoria, she became Junior Vice-president of the Women's Conference Executive in 1942, assistant Secretary in 1943 and Secretary from 1944 to 1947. She was President of the Victorian Women's Conference 1952-1953.

      With the reorganisation of the women's work in Victoria-Tasmania, she was Secretary of the Christian Women's Fellowship in 1956-57, and in 1959, and served that organisation as assistant Secretary in 1960-61. She has always taken an interest in overseas mission work, both in the area of the mission strategy and in a personal sharing with individual missionaries. In 1955

she visited the Indian mission field to see at first hand the work of the missionaries.

      As Secretary of the C.W.F. Missionary Committee, she had a large part in the establishment of Ludbrook House in 1960. She was aware that missionary families on furlough from their fields were often embarrassed because they lacked a house during their homeland visit. For some years Ludbrook House, named after a well-known family with strong missionary interests (some members used to think that the initials of F. M. Ludbrook actually stood for "Foreign Missions"!), was used almost continuously and effectively, but in later years the need has not been so great. The property was sold and the money received was used to help develop a unit at the College of the Bible where missionaries can still be accommodated.

      Lila was a member of the Victoria-Tasmania Overseas Mission Department, first as Women's Representative from 1956 to 1962, and as its Secretary from 1962 to 1966 and assisted in farewelling, welcoming and accommodating missionaries as well as arranging itineraries.

      With the rise of the Young Women's Fellowship in our Victorian churches, there was an alternative offered to the afternoon women's activities of the churches. The Ladies' Aid and the Mission Band were day sessions with the former being concerned with local church projects and the latter with devotional programmes largely majoring on mission activities.

      The Y.W.F. (an evening activity), which began in 1948, had a four point programme--Spiritual, Educational, Social, Recreational. Although happy at the growing strength of the evening programmes which were accessible to young mothers forced to stay at home in the daytime Lila nevertheless had some misgivings about another organisation for women which was running along parallel lines to the Women's Conference. Conversations began in 1952 with the Y.W.F. Executive and in 1957 it was decided to change the name to Evening Women's Fellowship and to have a closer liaison with the Conference Executive. In 1969 the E.F. Executive brought a recommendation

to the Annual Conference of the Christian Women's Fellowship (the overall name had been changed in 1956) to become an integral part of the whole organisation. This name is now used also for the Federal women's work.

      One of the significant projects of the Victorian C.W.F. is the annual "Golden Bag" offering which gives generous support to State and Federal church agencies. Lila, as C.W.F. Missionary Committee secretary, helped to launch the "Golden Bag" appeal in 1958. (The idea originated during Mrs. Reg. Clark's presidential year, 1928-29). Lila made a plastic bag for each fellowship group.

      Lila was also engaged in inter-church relationships and was prominent in the Victorian Women's Inter-Church Council. She followed terms as Junior Vice-president and Senior Vice-president with service as President of the Council in 1953.

      She was largely responsible for the invitation given to an Indonesian church woman to visit Victoria. She had long felt that it would be good to make contact with women in the church overseas, and it was she who suggested that Miss A. L. Fransz of Indonesia be brought to Australia to speak to church women. Lila enthused the Council to adopt the idea, helped to raise the funds and organised the itinerary. The whole enterprise was a signal success.

      One of the features of the visit of Miss Fransz was the opportunity provided for inter-church fellowship within Victoria. A car, for example, would take Miss Fransz from Melbourne to Ballarat and a Presbyterian, a Methodist and a member of Churches of Christ would accompany her. Another car would take the visitor on to, say, Shepparton, and here would be a Baptist, an Anglican, and so on. In each centre there were additional opportunities for inter-church co-operation.

      When Miss Fransz returned to Indonesia she took with her a gift which enabled her to build a classroom for her Christian education work. Years later she said that the classroom was still being used with effect and was an enduring reminder of Australian church women's concern.

      Despite the success of the programme and a way opened up for all kinds of similar ventures, Lila was saddened that the idea was never followed up and repeated.

      Another of Lila's deep interests has been the history of our churches. She is a member of the Federal Historical Society of Churches of Christ in Australia. She has been anxious to see that material relating to the origins and development of our churches is preserved and cannot understand why many local churches do not respond to the pleas of the archivists to seek out and protect historical material while it is still available.

      She visited the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville, Tennessee in 1974 on her way home from the 9th World Convention in Mexico City, Mexico, and was surprised to find how much interest that Society takes in Australian historical material.

      An extension to the College library buildings, costing $10,000.00, was presented in 1973 to the College by Lyall and Lila as a memorial to their parents. This extension provided for a historical library known as the R. T. Pittman Memorial Library.

      Despite their involvement in church activities, both Lyall and Lila lived a full life with many family and social interests. Lyall himself was no cloistered saint or ivory tower bookish academic. He has always been physically vigorous and managed to find or make time for the exercise of the sporting interests which he had embraced with enthusiasm when he was a lad on the farm.

      He played football, cricket and tennis, but football was his first and greatest love. At the age of 14 he played with an adult football team in Nhill in the Wimmera Association and at 17 was playing in the Ballarat League.

      When he entered the College of the Bible in 1925, he played football in church associations with the Middle Park, Hartwell and Glenferrie Churches of Christ. He won a medal as the "best and fairest" player in the Eastern Suburbs Churches' Association.

      In 1928, and still at College, he played with Camberwell in the Victorian Football Association and won the cup as the most consistent player of the year.

      He gained a place in the Hawthorn team in the Victorian Football League, playing on the centre wing and in the back pocket. He had a full time church, and was engaged in university studies as well. The football training schedule made very heavy demands on an already full programme. Pressure of work caused him to drop out of League football in 1931.

      Payment for playing sport materially helped with university fees and family needs, especially in the depression years. He went back to Camberwell in the Association for 1932, 1933 and 1934.

      On returning to lecture at the College he played with the students in inter-house games and in inter-college matches, and was still playing in college games at the age of 66.

      His pacifistic ideals were no barrier to his football. He played the game hard but fair. He was never rough but he was a ball player and if an opponent was between him and the ball, it became very evident why Australian Rules football is known as one of the hardest body contact games in sport! Lyall was well developed in shoulders, arms and legs and was very fast and strong. His speed and strength enabled him to shine at track and field sports and he was sports champion at the College of the Bible each year of his course. He was the first student to win the title four years in a row. Only once since then has this been equalled.

      Even as Principal of the College of the Bible, the man from Kaniva never forgot his farming background. He was the first (and so far the only) Principal to own and milk his own "college cow". Another cow owned by the students helped them to obtain cheap milk. Lyall also kept hens and organised a pen for the students to provide eggs for the College kitchen.

      He was always seeking ways to relieve the financial

burden of the College and to assist students to survive in the harsh economic climate of student life.

      When he himself came to College he had nothing in hand, but did receive a little help from his father. He financed his own way through College by doing some gardening, by serving a church at weekends, and by working in the long summer vacations. For the latter he went back to the wheat district and did contract bag-sewing. This was very rough on his hands but helped his bank account and he would return to College reasonably well equipped for the next year.

      Nevertheless, he had almost nothing at the end of his college course and when he married in 1930, and discovered that renting a house was too high in relation to wages, he decided that it was cheaper to buy. He had to borrow the deposit and first and second mortgages were also needed.

      Then came the depression and in the struggle to survive, Lyall and Lila sold their home and bought a cheaper house. Later on, he had some modest success in buying and selling properties, but he never engaged in real estate with a view to speculation. He was either indulging his repressed love for farming or he had some plan to help a student or a friend.

      For example, when a married farmer with four children came to Glen Iris, Lyall Williams went into partnership with Keith Jones to buy a 51-acre farm at Narre Warren North and put the student in the farm-house to supervise the property. When the family moved out into a student church manse, the property became too much to handle. Most of it was sold at a profit, but on the remaining section, Lyall and Lila built their present home, "Boronia Lodge", in a lovely hill setting.

      To help an alcoholic, the Williamses first put him and his family in a house on their own property, and later bought a house at Cockatoo for them to rent at a nominal rate. But this was too far from the hotels and the man refused to go! When the man had a car accident and received $10,000 compensation, Lyall, having previously

bought another house in Cockatoo, sold it to the man and his wife for $10,000 (although it was valued at $14,000) and ensured that the home could not be sold without the wife s consent, thereby ensuring a permanent home for her and her children.

      He bought other blocks of land at Cockatoo, and with a Christian builder and sub-contractor, he built three homes. One of them was accidentally built 15 feet on to the roadway and had to be moved back. The profit on one of these homes enabled him to assist a lecturer to go overseas for further studies, and the profit from another enabled him to share in the cost of the extension library at the C.O.B.

      The experience he gained in buying and selling for good causes also enabled Principal Williams to assist the College Board of Management in its financial programmes.

      Life for Lyall and Lila is full and demanding on their Narre Warren property, where they have graduated from cows to horses. They breed and run horses worth more than $15,000 and the bonuses for a visit to "Boronia Lodge" include pony rides and tractor driving for the

      They have not equated retirement with idleness and even the concept of retirement hardly applies to them. When Dr. Mannix, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, was still going strong at 90, he heard that the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne was about to retire at 72. He enquired, "Why does a young man like that want to retire?" Retirement could mean only a change of employment.

      For Lyall and Lila it has been a busy retirement. Lila is still active in women's church activities, and Lyall has continued an active interest in the College and in the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ.

      When their old church at Boronia was in between ministries, Lyall and Lila helped out for two years and to onlookers it looked much more than the part-time ministry it was supposed to be.

      They even found themselves involved in a large rebuilding programme. Lila helped to design the new building; they both assisted with the financial aspects, and Lyall also was heavily involved in the voluntary work scheme which cut thousands of dollars from the cost.

      He preaches in the churches when invited, which is almost every Sunday, and he often conducts studies, especially those relating to the position of Churches of Christ. He preaches without notes, a practice he developed when a student minister. He discovered that the best way to preach without notes was not to take notes into the pulpit! He is still Lila's number one preacher.

      The influence of Lyall Williams has been wide and deep. There is hardly a church in any State which has not been directly or indirectly influenced by him, and Conferences in Australia and mission fields across the world have acknowledged their debt to him and to those whom he guided and equipped for ministry.

      There have been three great driving forces throughout the ministry of Lyall Williams. One is his commitment to the Christ who reconciles man with God and man with man. The second is his conviction that the Church is one body and that Christian unity is an essential and not optional. The third has been his efforts to achieve and maintain peace in the world and to alleviate the distress caused by military or economic oppression.

      These are simply different aspects of the reconciling love of Christ and it was to this Christ that Lyall committed his life. There were times when the way of discipleship was hard--not in physical, financial or personal difficulties in which everyone has to share, but on the occasions when his fellow disciples spoke against him. Sometimes there was misunderstanding by men of goodwill, but at other times it was hard to escape the feeling that there was misrepresentation. There were occasions when he must have been deeply hurt, but those who were close to him never heard him react with bitterness or knew him to hold resentment. Much of Lyall's strength came from the support given

by Lila. They have been partners in love, in the home and family, and they have been partners in faith.

      Lyall served the churches through participation in many of its agencies. He is an ideal committeeman. He has a keen mind and a sure instinct for the right response in the most difficult situations, and a facility for choosing the right words to express that response. Those of us who live with words, value his rich vocabulary and his economy in using it. But always the spirit of conciliation is in both the spoken word and the pen. It is not unusual for him to work with colleagues late into the night on a statement about an important church issue, and then for him to phone the next day to suggest a change that would make for clarity or charity! But truth is never compromised. There could be no tinkering with his deep convictions in order to placate somebody. Actions and responses are negotiable, but never truth.

      He has always been ready to heed a call for help, or to offer help before the call was made. He has been extraordinarily generous in giving assistance to others. Quite often, his left hand did not know what his cheque book was doing!

      In his desire to advance our part of the Church of Christ, Lyall has been true to our heritage. He has consistently preached and taught and lived out the great ideals of unity and restoration. He has also been an unswerving advocate of good scholarship and effective Christian living. He once wrote, "If we are to fulfil our mission in relationship with others, we must develop a culture that is expressed in our life, worship, witness and ministry. We are a small people numerically and we shall not fulfil our mission by any quantitative impact, but by the impress of quality. We must be a people of marked mental, moral and spiritual range and quality." Many of us think that Lyall Williams is the highest endorsement of his own words.

      In I Thessalonians 5:21 Paul admonished Christians to prove all things and hold fast that which is good. To prove, can mean to establish something. In the world of tangible things, science tests hypotheses, natural elements, products and all manner of things in order to prove or establish their truth. In the world of intangibles experience is the crucible in which the testing is done. Testing in this area of intangibles does not prove in the way that tangibles can be proved. It can confirm faith but faith remains faith. It does not become sight. Our faith can be shown to be not unreasonable but it cannot be proved in the way that it can be proved that lead will sink in water.

      Modern translations use the word "test" rather than "prove". It is in line with this that theologians no longer talk of proving the existence of God but rather, speak of arguments for the existence of God. We must recognise that the most that these arguments can do is to show that faith in God is not unreasonable. The final test for faith in God and for the validity of the whole range of spiritual values, is experience. Faith and a way of life are tested by experience.

      If I am asked in 1976, fifty-six years after my baptism into Christ, why I am still a Christian, I would answer at the outset that it is because I find it a satisfactory alternative to the mood of our day.

      History suggests to me that there is nothing new under the sun. Human moods and attitudes repeat themselves, even though the form may vary in different ages. However, we know our own age and to me there are certain elements that stand out in the modern mood.

      Doubt and uncertainty mark the mood of the world around us and also invade the household of faith and attack the moral nerve centres of both young and old. Many are only certain of their uncertainty. This naturally leads to rebellion which easily becomes rebellion for the sake of rebellion. Authority, law, institution, tradition and

establishment should be swept away. In this mood, it is an easy step to permissiveness according to which all things are lawful and the function of reason is to justify desire, whatever desire may be. In an age of science, human sufficiency is a prevalent creed. Give man time and education and he will prove adequate for all needs. In this mood man is prone to say, 'Science is my shepherd, I shall not want." Particularly in the affluent Western world the emphasis is upon things and material security. The affluent consumer society is dominated by wants that are insatiable, with no discerning of the difference between wants and needs. The mood is one of materialism.

      The Christian alternative calls for conviction and commitment. Jesus said that if any man wills to do His will he shall know the doctrine. Conviction is the trigger of commitment and commitment is the way to conviction. A life of conviction and commitment is much richer in experience than a life of doubt and uncertainty without commitment.

      It is true that Christianity began as a dangerous revolution and it calls constantly for rebellion, but it calls for a rebellion against disvalues, not against values. There are enough disvalues in the world against which to rebel without rebelling against time-honoured values. It is always a mistake to throw out the baby with the bath water.

      The emphasis of Christianity is upon grace and principles rather than upon law. Grace, however, is not an excuse for relaxed effort but provides the basis of nobler endeavour. Grace is never permissive. Paul strongly argued for grace as against law, but made it clear that we should not continue in sin that grace may abound (Romans 6:1-3). It is important not to confuse law with legalism or authority with authoritarianism. Life according to loyalty to a Person or according to principles has flexibility, but it provides no escape from standards, self-discipline and responsibility.

      While science has made a tremendous contribution to human need, it does not solve the basic problem which is man himself. One may expatiate at length and with

enthusiasm about all the achievements of modern science but one must also point to Hiroshima and see that this also is science.

      Jesus was quite practical. He recognised the need and importance of bread and clothing. He did not discount material values as an impractical idealist but He confirmed the truth that experience has made obvious to all who have eyes to see, namely, that "man shall not live by bread alone." Materialism in any form is not enough. Jesus emphasised the necessity of getting our priorities right and called us "to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness" and let other things fall into their proper place (Matt. 6:33).

      In all this I see the Christian alternative to the modern mood.

      I would see Christianity as a philosophy and a way of faith, hope and love. A common philosophy is one which accepts only the things that can be seen, heard, touched, smelt and tasted. Whatever can be grasped by the senses is real and we can be sure of no reality beyond that. The emphasis is upon phenomena.

      We cannot be out of sympathy with the concern about phenomena but it must be recognised that phenomena of any kind always raise questions that go beyond the phenomena themselves. The causes and consequences and the meaning of phenomena call for our consideration.

      In face of the emphasis upon phenomena, we would point out that Christianity is not without such. Whatever one thinks of the Church and the Bible, especially the New Testament, they are very real and stubborn phenomena in the history of man over the last two thousand years. Behind these phenomena there is a phenomenon which is just as real as the phenomena of Alexander the Great, Socrates, Julius Caesar, Voltaire, Nelson, Napoleon, Pitt, Washington or Lincoln, to mention but a few celebrities of history.

      The phenomenon in terms of which we can account for the phenomena of church and New Testament is the phenomenon of Jesus of Nazareth. The late H. G. Wells,

claiming to write as an objective historian, states the historical fact in plain terms. "It was while Caesar Augustus, the first of the Emperors, was reigning in Rome that Jesus, who is the Christ of Christianity, was born in Judea. In His name a religion was to arise which was destined to become the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. Now it is on the whole more convenient to keep history and theology apart. A large proportion of the Christian world believes that Jesus was an incarnation of that God of all the Earth whom Jews first recognised. The historian, if he is to remain historian, can neither accept nor deny that interpretation. Materially Jesus appeared in the likeness of a man, and it is as a man that the historian must deal with Him. He appeared in Judea in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. He was a prophet. He preached after the fashion of the preceding Jewish prophets. He was a man of about thirty, and we are in the profoundest ignorance of His manner of life before His preaching began. Our only direct sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are the four Gospels. All four agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality. One is obliged to say, 'Here was a man.' 'This could not have been invented'." (A Short History of the World, p. 126.)

      This Jesus of Nazareth is the centre of the Christian faith, known to us by the witness of the New Testament and through Christian experience. Experience is admittedly subjective. It is personal and inner and cannot always be put into words. The Christ of the New Testament is an interpreted person and interpretation cannot escape a subjective element. Our only plea can be that subjective experience and interpretation are rooted in an objective Person and event.

      Back in the nineteen thirties I sat in the class of a very able lecturer in English in the Melbourne University. One day in the course of a lecture he had reason to refer to the Apostle Paul. He spoke of Paul's experience on the Damascus road and interpreted it in terms of an epileptic fit. It occurred to me that Paul had a great advantage over a professor of English or anyone else in the twentieth century. He was there and he had the experience. As he

understood it, it was an encounter with the living Christ and it radically changed his life. He was ready to be martyred for his faith.

      A similar thing can be said regarding the writers of the New Testament. They were Apostles or associates of Apostles, and were involved in a personal encounter with Jesus. It was out of this encounter that they interpreted Him as the Christ, the Son of the living God. He was the Word made flesh, the image of the invisible God, one in whom dwelt the whole fullness of deity, one in whom God was to make reconciliation, one who was in the form of God and was made in the likeness of man; He reflected the glory of God and bore the stamp of His nature. They knew Him, they heard Him teach and listened to His claims to be the Light of the world and the way, the truth and the life; they saw His works and life; they saw Him die; they saw an empty tomb and had fellowship with a risen Saviour and Lord.

      With reason it may be said that in certain areas they would reflect the thought of their times just as we do today, but in the area of experience and moral and spiritual discernment, can it be said that they were naive and inferior to men and women of succeeding generations?

      If God is real at all and in the fullness of time sent forth His Son, is it not more than likely that He would have undergirded the witness to the event and ensured that the revelation of truth was not lost to the world?

      It was said by contemporaries that they "did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His Majesty" (II Peter 1:16), and "that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands . . . that which we have seen and heard we proclaim to you" (I John 1:1-3).

      Here is the event, the interpretation and the faith which gave rise to Christianity. This is the faith by which Christianity lives and by which we, as individual Christians, live.

      It is this faith which gives us a gospel beyond high ideals. Ideals are necessary but not enough. Man needs liberation. In Christ, as interpreted in the New Testament, we have a gospel which is the good news of God's grace and the liberating power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. This same faith is the basis of living beyond all other levels of life in that it is the foundation of confidence, courage, commitment and ventures of sacrificial service. Experience tells us that this faith makes for high living. As a principle of life it is the opposite and necessary antidote to fear. In all areas fear is a negation; it says no to life. We cannot live by the no of fear. Faith is an affirmation; it says yes to life. Faith galvanises, fear paralyses. Christianity gives us a faith by which to live.

      The other side of the shield of faith is hope. Within the Christian faith hope is more than desire and expectation; it is assurance. It is common to think of hope in terms of the future, the hope of the final triumph of the King and the Kingdom, and the hope of future life. This is a real dimension of hope. It is important that mortal man, man who suffers the limitations of the creation, man for whom death is one of the certainties, should have the assurance that death is not the last word; life is ultimately triumphant.

      Hope has a present dimension as well as a future one. I believe that one of the great burdens borne by man is life or existence without meaning and without purpose. For faith, the world is a creation, a cosmos rather than a chaos; history is the unfolding of an eternal purpose; the whole creation moves to one far off divine event; in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son. There is an eternal purpose and any life may become clothed with purpose through identification with that purpose. This purpose gives meaning to life. Hope is the assurance of meaning and purpose here and now.

      As pioneers and others have come to know, anyone who attaches himself to high ideals and a noble cause is doomed to much frustration and disappointment. There is no escaping the cross; but the resurrection tells us that

the last word is not with man, but with God. Hope is the assurance that ultimately truth, righteousness and all the values of the Kingdom will triumph. As someone put it: "We may not be winning as fast as we would like, but we know that in the end, our enemies cannot win at all."

      A very important factor in life is acceptance. From the moment of its birth it is important to the babe, somehow, to know that it is accepted or wanted. This is a necessity to the day of death. In human experience, forgiveness is an essential element in acceptance. It has been said, "In the last resort there is nothing to which the heart and mind of man can cling except belief in a love which accepts us just as we are and can do for us more than we can ask or think." From such faith springs hope which is the assurance of acceptance. Christianity gives us a hope by which to live.

      Jesus said that the whole of the law and the prophets hang upon love of God and love of our fellow men (Matthew 22:37-40). The New Testament echoes this again and again. Love is the royal law. First mile virtues and the second mile virtues of grace all flow out of love. Paul assures us that nothing can separate us from the love of God, nothing that life or death can do to us.

      A Christian is one who has been conquered by the love of God and who conquers by the same love. "We win an overwhelming victory through Him who has proved His love for us" (Romans 8:37, Phillips).

      Human love commonly has two elements in it; it is at once desiring and giving. The ideal of love as presented in the New Testament is predominantly a giving love. Some would say it is wholly giving. It sees all men as men for whom Christ died and so sees worth in all. At this point we see that love is open-eyed and hate is blind, contrary to the adage that love is blind. Seeing worth, love creates or draws forth worth. It brings out the best. This leads us to see that love is a positive, creative attitude. As such, it can be commanded because it embraces the whole personality. It is not confined to feelings. While love has an emotional content it is something far deeper and as such it is far wider in outreach. The New Testament requires

it to reach out, even to enemies. Sweetheart love is highly emotional and cannot be commanded; but if it is to become Christian and stable it must embrace the whole personality, the mind, the feelings and the will. Stability of marriage and of all life depends upon a love which is rooted in the whole personality.

      The love ideal of the New Testament is a gift of God's grace, a fruit of the gospel. This fact underlines the truth that Christianity gives us a love by which to live.

      There is much in life to make us cynics and turn us sour. The only answer to such cynicism is the maintenance of faith, hope and love. Without this trinity we become another of the problems that make for cynicism. The source of sweetness is faith, hope and love. My constant prayer is that I shall not lose my faith, hope and love; that having tested all things, I shall hold fast that which is good and still be a Christian.

      As I remember, it was soon after I graduated from the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, in 1928 that the daily press carried news items concerning a virtual heresy trial of a theology professor. In this context, I was very interested to read a book written by him entitled "Essential Christianity". Probably his experience drove him to write such a book.

      For me, one of the greatest tragedies of humanity--if not the greatest--is man's inhumanity to man. This has appeared at its worst when it has been perpetrated in the name of Christ. Wars have been waged, men and women tortured, persecuted and martyred in the interests of "true" Christianity. Through the repetitions of lectures in church history for 35 years I never lost my horror at those stories in which it seemed to me that essential Christianity was denied in the effort to preserve dogmatic Christianity. One instance is illustrative. Miguel Servetus was undoubtedly a provocative and presumptuous Spaniard who came to be regarded as an unorthodox Christian. He fell foul of the Roman Catholic Church and was condemned and imprisoned. However he escaped and ventured into the Protestant territory of Geneva, where he was apprehended by John Calvin. After trial he was condemned to be burned at the stake. They bound him to the stake with a chain and wound a strong rope four or five times about his neck. From the flames he prayed: "O Jesus thou Son of the eternal God, have pity on me." William Farel, an ardent reformer, said that had he been willing to confess Jesus as the eternal Son of God he might have been saved.

      Over the years I have received a variety of letters designed to correct my mistakes and I would not claim to be free of such. Various letters led me to include among my different files one which was labelled "Heresy". Two letters of special interest were anonymous. One came at a time when I could not think of any provocation. It contained a wad of biscuit crumbs. There were but two messages: "You Crumb"; "You rat." The other letter

came to me after my visit with other Australian churchmen to Russia, Czechoslovakia and China. It was written in red ink and addressed to E. L. Williams, Judas Iscariot of Churches of Christ, Glen Iris. Remarkably enough, the postman knew where to deliver it. Among other things, the writer said that Martin Luther would take a broom and sweep me like dirty rubbish into the gutter.

      Observation and experience have raised for me a pertinent question: what is essential Christianity? With this question there looms the most important necessity of being responsible in essentials.

      I cannot escape the deep conviction that the essence of Christianity is loyalty to Christ. That is it in a nutshell. Jesus confronted different persons and simply said "Follow Me." That was His cardinal command and it still is. The late Dr. Albert Schweitzer has reminded us that He comes to us today just as he came to those men on the shore of Galilee. His command is the same and He sets us to those tasks He has for us in our day. To those who obey He will reveal Himself in all that they are privileged to share in His fellowship until they come to know as an inexpressible secret just who He is.

      I would not minimise the importance of the church or the New Testament or under-rate theology or fail to recognise the place and purpose of historical creeds. However, it is important to recognise that before ever there was a church or a New Testament and before there was the development of theology and the formation of creeds--over which there has been much controversy and division in the history of Christianity--there was this cardinal command of Christ, "Follow Me." Historically, it was first in time and as He continues to call all to follow Him, it is logically and practically prior to all other demands. All loyalties are valid, only as they are expressions of loyalty to Him in obedience to that cardinal command.

      It has been said that the glory of the early disciples was that they knew Jesus, believed in Him and loved Him. They did not begin by believing in things about Him, having opinions and theories concerning Him; they began by believing in Him.

      From the beginning of their history, one element in the vision that brought Churches of Christ into being was an emphasis on the watchword: "No creed but Christ." Among other things, this tenet highlights the truth that Christianity is essentially a response of persons to a Person. This is beyond all the opinions, theories and theologies that find their expression among Christians. We may differ in these areas but if we have grasped essential Christianity we do not divide over them.

      For the early Christians who experienced the living encounter of a flesh and blood person, the Jesus who said "follow Me" was grasped as the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:18). To them He was unique and absolute as Saviour and Lord. To Christians in all ages His cardinal command remains: "Follow Me"--and essential Christianity is summed up as loyalty to Him.

      The crux of loyalty is devotion rather than definition. Miguel Servetus' definitions may have been mistaken, but the real test of his Christianity was whether he was devoted to Christ or not.

      A study of church history makes it very evident that there has been much controversy and division concerning the nature of Christ, His relation to the Father, the relation between the divine and the human in Him, and the nature of His saving work (the atonement). Differences of definition in this area must persist at all levels of theology from the pews to the professional theologians.

      In my study, thought and observation, it has occurred to me that in the main, at the practical level, for all the differences of thought and definition, Christ has been thought of and experienced as Lord and Saviour. I believe that Christ saves us, not because of our theories of the atonement, but in spite of them. The all important thing is to experience the atonement rather than explain it. Furthermore, He is Lord for those who obey Him. The theology of "Lord, Lord" is real only if in spirit, word and deed we are loyal to Him. "Any one who does not have the Spirit (or spirit) of Christ does not belong to him" (Romans 8:9).

      In general we may say that the proof of loyalty is Christlikeness. An analysis of this yields at least three basic qualities. When we further analyse these qualities they in turn encompass many virtues.

      The first of these qualities is basic integrity. Some years ago I gained an interview with the then Victorian Comptroller of Stamp Duty. My purpose was to intervene in a case where I believed an injustice was being done to someone in the matter of stamp duty on the sale of a property. What with increased duty, interest charged and a penalty imposed, the amount payable was lifted from $500 to about $3500. With a knowledge of all the facts, I made my approach. In the course of the conversation I remarked to the Comptroller that I knew that his office had to deal with the problem that so many people lacked basic integrity. He nearly jumped out of the chair with the remark, "You have said it, they lack basic integrity." Incidentally, my "client" eventually paid only $500.

      It has been said that the test of a man's honesty is whether one can buy a second-hand car from him. The test used to be horse dealing.

      Basic integrity as expressed in such foundational virtues as honesty, truthfulness, purity and the like, provides an essential foundation of all Christlikeness.

      Christian virtues may be divided into first mile and second mile values. As the superstructure of any building requires firm foundations, so the superstructure of second mile values can rise only on the foundation of basic integrity. Having laid the foundation, we move to the superstructure of second mile values of Christlikeness which can be gathered together under the heading of grace.

      Basic integrity is essential to right relationship with others and grace, which is beyond law, is the oil which makes relationships easy and saves them from wear. Grace makes us easy to live with, both at home and in business, sport, society and church.

      Courtesy, patience, magnanimity, generosity, readiness to forgive, kindness, thoughtfulness, eagerness to believe the best, never being glad when others go wrong, never

irritated and rejoicing in goodness, all belong to the second mile quality of grace. Basic integrity is necessary to a pass mark while grace is necessary honours in Christlikeness. We all know too well how hard it is to obtain honours, but honours is the Christian standard. Paul tells us this in

      I Corinthians 13. It is good to read this passage in different translations. I have found Moffatt particularly relevant.

      As a New Testament sample of the demand for basic integrity and grace, Ephesians 4:20-32 as translated by J. B. Phillips is pertinent. "You have learned nothing like that from Christ, if you have really heard His voice and understood the truth that He has taught you. No, what you learned was to fling off the dirty clothes of the old way of living, which were rotted through and through with lust's illusions, and, with yourselves mentally and spiritually re-made, to put on the clean fresh clothes of the new life which was made by God's design for righteousness and the holiness which is no illusion.

      "Finish, then, with lying and tell your neighbour the truth. For we are not separate units but intimately related to each other in Christ. If you are angry, be sure that it is not out of wounded pride or bad temper. Never go to bed angry--don't give the devil that sort of foothold.

      "If you used to be a thief, you must not only give up stealing, but you must learn to make an honest living, so that you may be able to give to those in need.

      "Let there be no more foul language, but good words instead--words suitable for the occasion which God can use to help other people. Never hurt the Holy Spirit. He is, remember the Personal pledge of your eventual full redemption.

      "Let there be no more resentment, no more anger or temper, no more violent self-assertiveness, no more slander and no more malicious remarks. Be kind to each other, be understanding. Be as ready to forgive others as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you."

      In recent times Jesus has been described as "the man for others". If this be given as a complete description of

      Him I would find it inadequate and too easily a basis for Christian humanism. However, it serves to point up an important aspect of Christlikeness for us. Someone has said that caring is the greatest thing out. Christianity has taught us to care. Concern for others is an essential ingredient of Christlikeness. We do not qualify as Christians without outreach and service according to ability and opportunity. Indeed, I believe that the heart of any call of God is found in a need and our ability to meet that need or to contribute to the meeting of the need.

      Hate as the antithesis of love may not be common, but indifference as an opposite of love, may be. Christlikeness is completed in concern.

      As I see essential Christianity it is beyond all the differences which necessarily characterise us as Christians. It delivers us from heresy hunting, which is all too easily a form of witch hunting. Differences in thought and emphases are inescapable because they belong to our varied make-up as inherent and conditioned. In all fields we fall into varying shades of liberalism and conservatism. Theologically there are degrees of so-called fundamentalism and modernism. These are relative terms, often undefined and distorted. For this reason their use is often, if not always, unfortunate. Labels too easily libel on whichever side they are used.

      As in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, and neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11), so in essential Christianity there is neither conservative nor liberal, fundamentalist nor modernist, literalist, socialist nor non-socialist, pacifist nor non-pacifist, but Christ is all in all and we are all one in Him.

      "What is man that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8.4.) A good question!

      Long ago a Greek philosopher defined a man as a two legged creature without wings. A college textbook has described man as an ingenious assembly of portable plumbing. The 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that man is a seeker after the greatest degree of comfort for the least necessary expenditure of energy. All this may be true enough but it is far from all the truth.

      In pre-Nazi Germany a statement was frequently quoted that the human body contains sufficient fat to make seven cakes of soap, enough iron to make a medium sized nail, a sufficient amount of phosphorus to equip two thousand match heads and enough sulphur to rid ones self of fleas. This may be quite true but, if it carries any suggestion that man is nothing more than the sum of these physical components, it would be easy to see a connection between this depreciation of man and the extermination camps of Nazi days.

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel prize-winner, has arraigned Communism as an attempt to explain society and the individual in a way as crude as if a surgeon were to perform his operations with a meat axe. With an eye on the principle of economic determinism he argues that all that is subtle in man and society is reduced, by Communism, to crude economic processes. It openly rejects all absolute concepts of morality and scoffs at "good" and "evil". He apparently has in mind here the traditional philosophy that anything is good which serves "the cause" while anything is evil if it does not serve "the cause". In the midst of his criticism Solzhenitsyn claims that Communism reduces man to matter. The depreciation of man results in a depreciation of all life.

      How readily we say, of course, that is Communism. This is what we would expect. But the depreciation of man is not confined to the Communist world. We should be aware of the psychology that would explain man in

terms of the basic quests of food, shelter, sex and society. There is no question about the fact, the naturalness, the importance and rightness of these quests. But if man is explained wholly in terms of them, he is sadly depreciated.

      From this kind of psychology it is an easy step to permissiveness with its lack of moral absolutes. How easily love is made the only absolute but it is love divested of all moral content and reduced to nothing but desire, contrary to responsible advocates of situation ethics.

      The depreciation of man and the depreciation of morals seem to go together and the depreciation of man readily, if not inevitably, follows the depreciation of God.

      The Biblical picture of man presents him as a child of nature. Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 depict him as made of dust. He is very much of the earth and even at his best he cannot escape feet of clay. As a child of nature, man lives within the processes of nature. Chemical imbalance can spell disease and disaster for man. He shares the bodily systems of the animal world--digestive, respiratory, vascular, excretory and reproductive systems.

      For many years I have indulged in a hobby of raising cattle and horses. Since "retirement" I have increased the herd and have been able to say that I have a herd in one place and a "flock" in another. In both herd and "flock" I have observed similar urges, similar sicknesses and accidents, some similarities of disposition and the same mortality. I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say I have seen people in horses and cattle and horses and cattle in people.

      Man is a child of nature, but there are important differences between man and the lower orders of creation. Mans upright posture, his moveable thumb and his enlarged brain have been cited as some of the differences. A monkey will use a stick to drag fruit outside its cage into reach of its hand and a certain kind of wasp will use a pebble to beat down the earth over its nest but man is vastly superior in his use of tools. The intricacy and complexity of machinery and power far outstrip the stick and the pebble. Man is a fire-using, sometimes a fire

abusing, creature. On both counts he is markedly different from the animals. An older psychology explained animal behaviour in terms of purposive urges. Patterns of behaviour were discerned in response to stimuli and situations. Goals and purpose seemed to play a part. Even if hormic psychology be outmoded, goals and purpose seem still to be in evidence in animal behaviour. But man is distinctive in the complexity and range of his purpose-forming behaviour. When some rosellas are enjoying my apple tree, others out in the field or on a fence seem to be able to communicate to their friends that it is time to fly away. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine birds or animals attending classes in Greek and Hebrew. Speech in the form of language and reduced to writing marks man off from the animal world. Praying has been added to the list of differences between man and animals. I have seen a preying manthus but you will observe that the spelling is different. We may add to these differences the significant fact that man, though a child of nature, observes and uses nature. We may want to add that man also abuses nature.

      The noting of differences between man and the lower orders of creation leads naturally to a second point in the biblical picture of man. According to Genesis 1:26-27 God created man in His own image. Theologians have varied in opinions concerning the exact meaning of the image of God but the significance of the statement that man is made in the image of God is recognised by all. One prominent writer has suggested that the whole of the Bible is really a commentary on this statement about man.

      If we are to do justice to man we must see him as not only a child of nature but also as spirit. Made in the image of God, there is that in man which reaches out to God. This is surely a reason for the phenomenon of religion, expressed in various religions, in the history and life of man.

      The image of God provides a point of contact for God. There is that in man to which God can speak. There is a capacity in man to recognise and respond to values beyond the values that attach to food, shelter, sex and society.

      Values of beauty, truth and goodness have reality for a creature made in the image of God. His true manhood is realised by a response to these values. Made in the image of God, man has the capacity to respond to spiritual values and the capacity for moral and spiritual development. He is capable of God-like action in expressions of love, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, justice, peacemaking and the like.

      As a being made in the image of God, man is at once capable of being a saint and a sinner. We may sometimes call our dog a sinner but it is bad theology to speak of an animal this way. No animal can really rise to sainthood or descend to being an unpardonable sinner. There is one creature made in the image of God by virtue of which he has the potential for moral elevation or degradation. When animals become sick and aged and of no further use, we commonly destroy them. Human life is not commonly regarded as disposable because man is spirit. The worth of every man, the dignity of man and the rights of man rest upon the recognition of man as made in the image of God.

      In Exodus 20 we read of the giving of the ten commandments. Their presentation assumes man's capacity for responsible living. It would have been a waste of time to give these commandments to an animal, a mere creature of nature. The late G. K. Chesterton once reminded us that we would not say to a crocodile, when he had just devoured his tenth explorer, "Come now, have done with that, be a crocodile." But if a man does something mean and despicable we do say, "Come now, have done with that, be a man."

      Is it not significant that the prelude to the ten commandments was the assertion: "I am the Lord your God"? This was followed by the number one commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me."

      Absolute moral values, man's potential, moral development and stability, and man's sense of responsibility are all rooted in the reality of God. Uncertainty about God leads to uncertainty about the things which belong to man as spirit, uncertainty about moral absolutes and uncertainty

about responsibility. All these are undergirded by faith in God and stimulated by worship.

      When tempted by a vision of this world's values, our Lord found an answer in the words: "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10).

      The absolute moral values of the ten commandments are reinstated and heightened in the New Testament. Christ came as the Son of God and declared that in seeing Him, man saw God. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life and the light of the world. Twelve of His disciples were called and made apostles--disciples who are sent. In this call He set the ideal of apostleship before all of His followers in all ages--to live responsibly and to call the world to live responsibly.

      It has been said that a monkey with a monkey's brain is a tolerable creature, but a monkey with a man's brain is intolerable. A creature with a man's brain must be a creature who, in his totality, realises the image of God and thus be very man of very man.

      Recognising the reality of God in Christ, Paul called all who would be truly men "to live life, then, with a due sense of responsibility, not as those who do not know the meaning and purpose of life but as those who do" (Ephesians 5:15).

      For many, the church represents an exploded traditionalism no longer to be treated seriously by thinking men and women, or it is a threadbare conventionalism which has ceased to possess any significance beyond that of a purely sentimental kind. They regard the church as completely irrelevant to their needs or the needs of the modern world. Others regard it as the home of lost causes or impossible loyalties and turn away regretfully to devote themselves to the more practical tasks of community involvement or social reform.

      I would remind both critics and ourselves, however that the church possesses a survival value and can present claims that defy all attempts to relegate it to the scrap heap of irrelevancies. Kings of the earth have set themselves against it and rulers have taken counsel to destroy the church but it has survived persecution, barbarian invasions, superstition, division, scepticism, confusion and humanism. It continues in spite of empires, for Christianity neither depends upon, nor can be destroyed by, such. Gamaliel's philosophy of history is illustrated by the church. "If this plan or this undertaking is of men it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them" (Acts 3:38-39).

      In his "History of European Morals" Lecky long ago reminded us that amid all the things which have disgraced the church, it has preserved in the character and example of its Founder, an enduring principle of regeneration.

      Among the great creative personalities of history, not least have been the sons and daughters of the church. In the attack upon unregenerate heathendom, the church alone has entered the field and can boast such names as Paul, Augustine, Patrick, Columba, Xavier, Carey, Morrison, Taylor, Moffatt, Livingstone, Slessor, Schweitzer and Grenfell, to mention some.

      In the list of pioneers of reform, triumphant figures are Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Fry, Howard, Woolmar and others. These were produced and inspired by the church.

      The names of its great ones are legion besides the millions of humbler cells who serve as a transforming leaven in all corners of the earth.

      We cannot escape the truth of a statement by the late H. E. Fosdick: "In the darkest places of this planet where else humanity would be helpless and sodden you will find hospitals and schools and spiritual agencies. They are put there by the Church. No other organisation has thought of such services in those desperate corners of the earth except the Church, and the men and women who sacrificially are serving there, are the Church's gift. Show me an organisation that can re-duplicate our Careys and Morrisons and Adoniram Judsons and General Booths, their compeers and successors who have gone where life is darkest, where need is deepest, where work is hardest, before you ask me to give up the Church. Do you want a man to sink his life in an Indian tribe or in the slums of New York, to run a hospital under the Arctic Circle in Alaska, or a school in the jungles of Africa? Do you want a man to do that who has had bestowed on him all that modern civilisation can bestow--high heritage, culture, education? Do you want him to do it without hope of earthly reward, no money except bare subsistence, no comfort except what he can gain from an alien and inhospitable situation? Where will you look for that man? You will look to the Church. The noblest men and women I have ever known, the men and women that I should most choose to be like, have had their roots in the Church. And the loveliest homes I ever have been in, homes that were bits of paradise on earth, one way or another, have had upon them the influence of the Church" ("Adventurous Religion pp. 251-252).

      Such an institution has a right and a need to exist. If we scrap it, what shall we put in its place? Sweep it away and the next generation will demand it. The gates of the unseen world have not and shall not prevail against it.

      All this is true and needs to be said, but we are stabbed broad awake by another aspect of the picture reflected in an admission by a prominent Christian writer: "The one really formidable argument against the truth of the

Christian religion is the record of the Christian Church. Again and again it has denied its Lord, distorted His teaching and betrayed His Spirit. Again and again it has taken the wrong side. The Church as an organised institution has too often appeared not merely irrelevant but positively injurious to the cause of Christ in the world."

      The church can silence this criticism and be fully relevant by being a responsible community. In developing this concept, it is helpful to consider the nature of the church.

      A study of the New Testament yields a picture of the church which I would outline in seven strokes of the pen. It is a called out community, a community of faith, hope and love, a worshipping community, a fellowship, a community of new life, a concerned community and a community with a gospel.

      It is a community by reason of these characteristics and it exists wherever Christians are. All its characteristics are expressed in the life of true Christians in all places at all times. However, it is obvious that some of the characteristics of the church will result in assembly and the community needs a focal point, a corporate life and some kind of form and structure.

      As assembly is a result, so are form and structure and as assembly is properly a stimulus to life, so organisation and institution should be instruments of life. They are means, not ends. If meetings and organisation become ends rather than means, the church fails to be a responsible community.

      The church is unlike other communities because it is called into being by God. Others result from human initiative alone. The church is the result of human response to divine initiative. God's call is a call to responsibility. As such, it is not a call out of the life of the world. According to the record of John 17:15 our Lord prayed "Not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil." The call is to a distinct life in the world in order to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. In this sense the church s not a part of the world roofed over.

      Living out its life in the midst of the world, the church,

as it is responsible and relevant, breaks with the common criteria and assumptions of the world. I would sum up these as material success and security; social status which is wrapped up with material success, education and inheritance; prudence which assumes that you are only wrong if you are caught; permissiveness which emphasises that you do what you think is right with thinking very much conditioned by desire; the use of force in all cases and without limit if it appears necessary; and the end justifies the means. A responsible community climbs the hill of Calvary and breaks with these criteria and assumptions of the world. It is relevant only as it is different. If in its involvement in the world it identifies with the world's standards, it immediately becomes irrelevant.

      I see the church clearly as the community which is called out in its purpose, life and mission, in its standards of faith, hope and love, in its recognition of the reality and worth of God, worshipping not only in spiritual exercises but in doing all things unto Him and offering all to Him, by its concerned service and by its witnessing in word and deed to the gospel of Christ.

      As called out, the church is not a club separated from the world for the benefit of its members, though there are real benefits for members. A minister who lives by the gospel is called to minister to the members of the church whose needs are real and to lead the church in ministry to the needs of those who belong to the wider community. It is not in the world to save itself but to save the world. Many people were wounded and groaning under the wreckage and many were killed in a terrible train accident. A few who escaped were trying desperately to rescue the wounded and attend to them. In the midst of it all, a woman sat beside her suitcase which had been torn open and kept repeating, "Oh, my sixteen-dollar pair of shoes!" She repeated this over and over again and mingled her cry with the moans of the wounded. The church which becomes lost in itself and is concerned only with its "$16 pair of shoes" is neither responsible nor relevant.

      While we speak of the life and mission of the church there is really no distinction between them. The life of

the church is in mission. The risen Saviour said, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). If the church gathers it does so in order to go. It has been well said that the only true picture of the church is a moving picture.

      In the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus confirmed the prophetic picture of His programme of service. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19).

      Central to this programme of proclamation and service Is the task of winning men and women, young and old to make Christ the centre of their lives. The church has not fulfilled its mission when it has persuaded a number of people to make a public confession and be baptised and add the habit of going to church to their other habits, but without changing them. Paul said that "if any man be in Christ he Is a new creation." The church is at once a community of new creations and an agent of a new creation.

      The gospel which the church proclaims does change the eyes of individual men and women but that is not enough. The world missionary conference at Tambaran, Madras, back in 1938, confirmed what had been said by individual writers before and what has been said in various ways since. It is not enough to reclaim individual slaves and leave intact the slave system, to reclaim individual addicts of alcohol and other drugs and leave intact the liquor and other drug systems, to pick up the wounded in war and leave intact the war system, to pick up the derelicts of an economic system and leave the system to go on leaving gross inequality, injustice and insecurity

      The church that does not start with the individual does not start, and the church which stops with the individual stops. Christianity began with a unique event when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Among all the

things revealed by that event there stands the truth of God's involvement in the life of the world. This sets the pattern for Christianity as a religion of involvement. It Is involvement here and now. There can be no monastic retreat from the ruggedness of the every-day life of all people, nor can there be any postponement of Christian ideals to a future world. A responsible community cannot escape involvement in the total life of man. Our life is not confined to our homes and personal relationships. These are real areas of life but so are the areas of commerce, industry, economics, politics and any other area of which we may think. The gospel must speak to man in all areas of life.

      During the economic depression of the nineteen thirties I was studying economics in the Melbourne University. It was an "in" subject in those days. Many members of the church with which I ministered were unemployed. This was the common situation. I could not help a percentage of sermons on economic and social issues. Some felt there were too many such sermons. Doubtless I committed some errors as a youthful and enthusiastic student of economics but I am unrepentant of the conviction that the gospel is concerned with the whole of man and the whole of life. While I think it is precarious for the church to identify itself with any particular economic, or social or political system, it must identify itself with the moral principles of the gospel and in the light of these, judge all systems.

      In the history of Christianity, two kinds of faith have been in evidence. One is acquiescent faith and the other rebellious faith. Acquiescent faith has seen things as ordained of God and inevitable while rebellious faith has been non-accepting of anything not in harmony with the implications of the gospel and the principles of the kingdom of God. I n Russia acquiescent faith said that love is a principle which cannot be applied in the hard realities of this world, but must be reserved for the world to come. Communism parodied the Christian message as: "Don't sigh, don't cry; you'll get a pie bye and bye in the sky when you die." In the days of Wilberforce, acquiescent faith said

that slaves were under the curse of Canaan; their lot was ordained of God. Shaftesbury encountered an acquiescent faith which said that the lot of mine and factory workers was inevitable but God had given them an inner faculty of the spirit which made external conditions of no account For slaves and oppressed workers there was the hope of a world to come. Thank God that a responsible community rebelled. As it is responsible, it always will rebel.

      People and moral principles are involved in social, political systems as well as in personal life. The church as a prophetic community cannot withdraw or be silent in any area of human life. As a prophetic community it will be concerned with justice beyond the niceties of charity. Its prophetic task will be performed by producing concerned citizens who seek to live out the gospel in all areas of life where they find themselves and as a corporate and responsible body exposing all evils in the light of Christian truth.

      It has been said that Christianity "first appeared as a dangerous revolution. It is probable that the name Christian excited as much terror and antagonism in the breast of conservatively minded Romans as the mention of 'Reds' in a West End club today." A Bampton lecturer at one time said, "In every age those who were chiefly interested in the maintenance of things as they are, have seen Christianity not as restful and reassuring, but as dangerous and subversive."

      It is the task of the church to maintain the moral gains of the past and lead the moral ascent of the future. It does not rally to the banners of the world or march to the world's drums, but refuses to be squeezed into the mould of the world around it. As responsible and relevant in its purity it outlives the world, in its progressiveness it out-thinks the world and in its courage, it out-dies the world.

      Some years ago my wife and I visited St. Mungo's Cathedral in Glasgow and, among other things, noted a bullet-pocked door and a small graveyard containing the graves of Covenanters. While in Edinburgh we went through the historic home of John Knox and observed there a fragment of one of the Covenants. As we know, sometimes covenants were signed by Covenanters in their own blood as a sign that they would resist unto blood. These things reminded us of the days of the Covenanter struggles. It was in this situation that secret meetings of Covenanters were contrary to the law of the land, but according to the Covenanters not contrary to the law of God. I am reminded of the story of a Covenanter girl who was overtaken by troops as she was going to a secret meeting for worship. When asked where she was going, she replied that she was going to keep an appointment with an elder brother. She was allowed to pass.

      At the institution of the Lord's Supper our Lord said: "This do in remembrance of Me." On another occasion He said: "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). The Lord's Supper is not merely a remembrance but a communion with a living Saviour and Lord. As Paul put it in I Corinthians 10:16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

      I go to church to keep an appointment with a living Saviour and Lord and to renew a covenant.

      As the Lord's Supper is a communion and the church is a fellowship, I go to church not only to keep an appointment with Christ, but also to keep an appointment with fellow members of the household of faith. As I need them they need me.

      "With eyes wide open to the mercies of God, I beg you, my brothers, as an act of intelligent worship, to give Him your bodies, as a living sacrifice, consecrated to

Him and acceptable by Him." This translation of Romans 12:1 makes it clear that worship is the recognition of God as real and worthful through commitment to Him in all things at all times. Worship is our thinking, feeling, speaking and acting in all life situations. This, however, does not preclude the need of special acts of worship both as an expression of our relationship with God and a stimulus to a constant relationship.

      With this understanding we can appreciate the words: "To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God."

      I go to church to worship, remembering the suggestion that in each of us there is a little plant called reverence that needs constant watering.

      We are essentially social. Human development depends upon relationship. Isolation is a dangerous thing and can lead to distortion as well as retard growth. Faith, hope, love, strength and courage are socially engendered. If noble ideals are doubted and discredited by sceptical critics it is hard to hold to them if we stand in isolation but under the stimulus of fellowship, we can hold our ground.

      We commonly experience moods of depression in the areas of faith, hope, love, courage and the like; but it is also common that when one is down, others are up. There are times, therefore, when I need the fellowship of other people and times when other people need my fellowship.

      Jesus called a group of disciples into close fellowship with Himself and together they withstood a variety of pressures, and were more than conquerors in a way that none of them, standing alone, would have been able to do.

      Relationship and friendship belong to the lifeblood of character. I go to church because the church is a fellowship of friends in a household of faith, hope and love.

      It has been said, that a deepening character is generally the unconscious result of consciously chosen influences. Going to church, like other activities, is a conscious choice.

      It brings to bear on our lives, various influences. In its various elements, worship is a concentration on ideals. Prayer, scripture reading, meditations, hymns, remembrance and communion all involve concentration on ideals. Other people with whom we have fellowship confront us with ideals. As goals are necessarily to life, so ideals are necessary to character.

      I go to church because I am convinced that it helps me to build character.

      We commonly emphasise going to church because we need the church, but I have often talked with professing Christians who say they feel no need of the church. They either attend very casually, or not at all, because they feel no need of it. At this point, it is important to stress the fact that the church needs all professing Christians.

      We are prone to walk through life stressing our rights, rather than our responsibilities, and thinking of our needs, rather than the needs of others.

      Our Lord established the church to continue His mission in the world. It is the appointed instrument of His Kingdom. While admitting all its weaknesses and failures and its need ever to be under reform, we know of no other community committed to the mission of Christ in the world, and committed to seek first His Kingdom and righteousness.

      If we profess the Christian faith, we cannot escape the call to be responsible members of a responsible community.

      Recently, I received a statement concerning chaplaincies in tertiary institutions. One sentence plainly stated the fact that our civilisation is based on the Judaic and Christian codes. I would add the point, made in another chapter of this book, that the call to responsible standards is most sure if based on the reality of God. The Judaic and Christian codes are based on the prelude to the ten commandments: "I am the Lord your God." God calls us to responsible churchmanship. God, religion, morality, worship, witness and service are tied up together.

      Christian humanism is not enough. Christian values

are the heritage of Christian faith and worship. Without the roots of faith and worship, the fruits will not flourish and eventually they will die. We can live on borrowed capital for a period but not indefinitely.

      I have heard non-professing Christians say that they believe in Christian values and they want their children to be given an education in Christian values, by the church. I have also heard professed Christians, who claim that they feel no need of the church, say they want their children to be educated in Christian values by the church. To all such, I would ask the question, how can the church fulfil a programme of Christian education or any other kind of programme without a membership that thinks of what contribution can be made, rather than what can be got out of it?

      A person well known to me, had been brought up in a Christian home and definitely committed his life to Christ and the church. Then came a period of casual commitment to the church. A day came when two of his children were old enough to go to Sunday school. He took them along and enrolled them and left them in the care of responsible church members. He told how, when he went home, he thought about the situation and saw himself as one who went along to the church and said "Here, you take my children and teach them." The next Sunday he went along and offered to be a teacher in the school. That was the beginning, for him, of responsible churchmanship. He became a very active member and officer in the life of the church. Probably, in seeing that the church needed him, he came to know that he needed the church.

      Some years ago, I read in a Christian journal of a minister who received three phone calls one Sunday morning from three teachers. None of them could be on duty that morning. One was baking a cake; another had set aside the day to help her husband paint the porch furniture; the third one did not feel like it that day. In the church service the minister preached on peace. He declared that military alliances were inadequate as means of peace. He sought to marshal the faith, which at that

moment was baking a cake, or stumbling over the porch furniture, or didn't feel like Christian service that day.

      Many people feel the need of the church; some may not feel this way. Whatever may be said about feeling or not feeling needs, there is no doubt about the church's need of responsible churchmanship. I find that my feelings run high and low in various connections. Sweethearts, husbands and wives, church members and others all know how variable are feelings. Stability, however, stems from the integration of feeling, thinking and willing. A full-orbed person not only feels but also knows and wills. Sometimes the will has to take over and will certain things because we know what is right, even if feelings are low and lagging. Other times, the mind and will are galvanised into action, by feelings. A responsible person always acts as one who knows, feels and wills, whatever the varying proportions of knowing, feeling and willing on different occasions and in different situations.

      I go to church to keep an appointment which brings me into the area of the stimuli of worship, fellowship and character building influences, because I feel a need and from long experience, know what I gain from it. Be that as it may, I also go to church because I feel an obligation to give whatever I can. I know that Christian faith requires responsible churchmanship of me. Hence, whatever other calls there may be, and whatever my feelings may be at various times, I will to be responsible.

      One of my predecessors as principal of the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, was the late A. R. Main. He was renowned for his trout fishing but apparently he sometimes ventured out to sea. The story is told how, on one occasion, he talked to a friend after being out in a boat. He said that he reached out over the edge and dipped his finger in the sea. It made no impression. Apparently he was making the point that in isolation, as individuals, we make no more impression in the world than does a finger dipped in the ocean. How true! We can make our lives count only by attaching ourselves to a cause.

      In 1954 my wife and I were among the many people who heard the late President Eisenhower address a large meeting which was arranged in connection with the second assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in the United States of America. In the course of his address, he said that a thousand experiences had convinced him, beyond room for doubt, that common and fervent dedication to a noble purpose, multiplies the strength of individuals and the body and brings within the scope of their capabilities almost any conceivable objective.

      Responsible people attach themselves to a cause and commit themselves with fervent dedication, to a noble purpose.

      In the book of Nehemiah we read how Nehemiah was moved to tears because the walls of Jerusalem remained in ruins. Many people are moved to tears but Nehemiah was also moved to action. When he and his associates proceeded with the rebuilding of the walls, there were those who were opposed and tried, in various ways, to prevent the good work. After failures in their opposition, the opponents suggested to Nehemiah, a conference somewhere on the plain of Ono, but Nehemiah sent a message saying: "I am doing a great work and I cannot come down" (Nehemiah 6:3). Probably he was speaking geographically or locally when he said he could not "come down", but consciously or unconsciously, he was speaking responsibly. He was doing a great work and any turning aside from it would have been a stepping down. Detachment from a noble cause or withdrawal from a programme which serves the Kingdom of God, is always a stepping down.

      The church is as imperfect as its members and maybe, its critics, but it is committed to a noble cause. Responsible living calls us to attach our lives to a cause. I still go to church.

      In European feudal days, a fief was the holding of land on condition of giving military service. The land was held on trust and the lord could call on the tenants at any time, to give military service. Sometimes an abbot, to secure military protection, would hand over his land to a nearby lord and receive it back as a fief. King John of England, under embarrassment, handed over his kingdom to the pope and received it back as a fief. There was a surrender and then a handing back of what was surrendered as a trust.

      At baptism, a Christian dies to self in order to live to Christ. There is a surrender of ourselves and our all, to the Lord and then all is handed back to us as a trust.

      Of old, a peculiar method of freeing slaves prevailed. A slave who coveted freedom would hoard his poor wages until he saved the price of his redemption. This, he would deposit in the temple-treasury and then his master must accompany him thither and accept it from the priest's hands in the presence of witnesses, thus selling his slave to the god. The slave thereby passed into the god's possession. He was the god's property and his liberty was thenceforth guaranteed. He was the god's slave, "bought for freedom", and it would have been sacrilege had he ever afterward been enslaved to another master. The slave was now free although not his own.

      The Apostle Paul said: "Ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price" (I Corinthians 6:19-20). It is because we have been bought with a price that, at our baptism, we hand over our lives and take them back as a trust. Our lives, and all that we have, are not ours to do as we like with them. We are bought out of the bondage of self-ownership, self-interest and self-service to enter into the service of Him, the bondage of whose loveliness is perfect liberty. We are bought for freedom.

      Stewardship is not confined to a special class of servants or to a particular trust. All Christians are stewards and all that we touch in life's varied activities and relationships is a trust.

      Life itself is a gift of God. It is for our use and not our abuse. The organ of life as we know it, is the body. When the body is worn out or destroyed by disease or accident, life as we know it ends. As life is a trust, the body as the organ of life, is a trust. In the context of telling us that we are not our own, Paul reminds us that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19). A temple is a sacred trust. In his plea for consecration the same Apostle says: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Romans 12:1).

      In work and play, in eating and drinking, a Christian always has due regard for his stewardship of the body.

      Even if we do not possess anything else, we all possess time. When the bell rang at the end of the period for an examination, a student complained that he had not had enough time. The examiner and supervisor very promptly replied, "You had all the time there was." That is true for all of us. We have all the time there is.

      One day, I remarked to a neighbour, that there were things I did in my own time. The smart observation came back: "Do you regard any time as your own? Surely all time is stewardship." That is really true. Even what we call our own or leisure time, is a stewardship. Leisure beyond the requirements of health and efficiency is a poor stewardship of time. Time frittered away or used to no purpose or used wholly for ourselves, is a neglected trust.

      The stewardship of time calls for a wise division between our necessary vocation, necessary rest, extra ventures of service and leisure.

      Our native gifts vary. Some are richly endowed and others are less gifted. But all have something to offer. To whom much is given, much is expected but the one "talent" steward is not exempted from Responsibility. Christian service calls for a wide variety of gifts, exercised in a variety of situations. Within the whole ministry of the church and within the community, there is a need for service, according to our gifts. A need and the ability to meet a need constitute a call to the task.

      No uncertainty in Ezekiel 33:7-8--"So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man thou shalt surely die; if thou cost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at shine hand."

      In the New Testament, we are warned not to be a stumbling block to another and we are told that, in the last judgment, the criterion will be our concern for others. We are commissioned to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom with its message of grace and its teaching of righteousness, peace and joy. Our stewardship of our fellow men and the gospel, are inextricably tied together.

      Long ago the writer of Ecclesiastes made a plea for diligence in all things: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might" (Eccles. 9:10). In Colossians 3:23 Paul wrote: "Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men." The inspiration to diligence in our daily work is to regard it as a stewardship under God.

      Brother Lawrence said that our sanctification does not depend upon changing our works, but in doing that for God's sake which we commonly do for our own. "I put my conversion as a lad into the polish on my father's shoes," said Samuel Chadwick.

      It has been pointed out that God called Peter from the fishing business, and Matthew from an office, Livingstone from a loom, Chalmers from a plough, Moffatt from a garden, Mary Slessor from a mill, and they became immortal in memory; but if the world is to be filled with the glory of God, He must have His ministers in all these places, not only those called from them.

      William Carey said: "My business is the kingdom of God. I mend shoes to pay expenses." We appreciate the suggestion that the kingdom of God is the real business of every Christian but we must not make the mistake of thinking that the kingdom is not promoted and expressed in the mending of shoes and socks.

      It may be easy to think of time and talents as trusts, because they are obviously gifts; but our treasure, is something we earn and save by our own efforts. Our diligence and thrift turn in treasure which is particularly ours.

      The native urges of acquisitiveness, self-preservation, self-display and self-assertion are served by treasure. Nature is all for getting and holding. Try to take a bone away from a dog. Love of treasure, blinds us to the stewardship of it. Nature and grace are often in conflict. Christianity is the triumph of grace.

      Science is stridently warning us concerning the necessity of stewardship in relation to natural resources. The energy crisis and pollution are constantly before us. Ecology and conservation are pressure points in society.

      All natural resources are the gift of God. "The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof!' (Psalm 24). God has committed it to man and each generation holds it in trust for each succeeding generation and holders of natural resources hold them in trust for all others. In the ultimate, there is no such thing as private property in natural resources.

      Where there is no sense of stewardship, the result is the dust-bowl, deforestation without afforestation and all forms of exploitation of natural resources for immediate gain or pleasure, without concern or compensation. Life is all getting and no giving.

      A farmer, on one occasion, said to me that he felt he wanted to leave his farm more productive than when he took it over. It was both his privilege and responsibility to discharge a trust.

      I recently read or heard someone protesting against the suggestion that man is his brother's keeper. He claimed that the Bible did not teach this. There seems little doubt that the innuendo in God's question to Cain and the suggestion of the whole narrative, are both clear that man is his brother's keeper. "And the Lord said unto Cain, 'Where is Abel thy brother?' and he said, 'I know not; am I my brothers keeper'?" (Gen. 4:1-12.)

      If we doubt the suggestion of this narrative, there is

      The sense of stewardship turns life into a mission and lifts life, with a sense of privilege and responsibility and like a refrain, Paul's words again ring in our ears, "Live life, then, with a due sense of responsibility," as trustees.

      The late Dr. Stanley Jones tells how a group of city ministers wrote to him, asking that he should not speak to them about such things as forgiveness of national enemies, but that he should talk about spirituality. We hasten to ask, what is spirituality? Who is truly spiritual?

      An aspect of spirituality is involvement and delight in spiritual exercises, such as prayer, Bible reading and worship, but spirituality cannot be confined to this. If we are truly spiritual, these spiritual exercises will be a sign of commitment to non-material values and if such exercises are genuine, they will stimulate commitment to nonmaterial values. Such commitment is the essence of true spirituality.

      In the study of economics and moral philosophy, the student is concerned with values but the values studied are of different orders. Economists talk about value in use and value in exchange. Value in exchange is commonly based on value in use. Things are valuable because they have a use. Money is the common measure of instrumental value. Things are not valuable in themselves; they have value because of their usefulness to something beyond themselves.

      There is another order of values. They are non-economic or non-material values. They are not dependent on use or on anything beyond their own quality. They are the values of things which are valuable in themselves. Common examples of these values are the moral qualities of honesty, truthfulness, purity, justice, forgiveness, generosity. It may be said that honesty is the best policy, suggesting that honesty is useful. But that is incidental to the value of honesty. Whether it pays or not, honesty is still a value. The late William Booth pressed this point when he gave an answer like this to a thief who sought to justify himself by saying that a man has to live: "There is no reason in all the world why you ought to live, but there is every reason why you ought to be honest."

      When I was a student, there was a story that circulated among the students, which could have been characteristically true. According to this story, someone whose life was known to lack certain moral qualities submitted an article on the Holy Spirit, to the late Principal A. R. Main, who was editor of "The Australian Christian". The article was refused publication. I agree that one who is keen about the Holy Spirit should be truly spiritual.

      The pursuit of non-material values leads to right relationship with our fellow men, while the pursuit of material values, without regard to non-material values, will readily destroy relationships. True spirituality and right relationship are indivisible "So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matt. 5:23-24).

      Lest we think that spirituality is unrelated to the material, it is necessary to recognise the material basis of spiritual values.

      If I pick up a feather or a leaf which is of no material value and put it in my pocket, even though I be on private property, I shall not be accused of stealing; but if I pocket an apple off an orchardist's tree, I am guilty of stealing because, among other things, the apple is of material value.

      Generosity is often the sharing of material things and our virtue is only real if there is value in the things we share. The sharing of left-overs and the valueless to us, is not generosity. Cost in material things is an element in generosity and genuineness.

      On one occasion, David had a bad conscience and he wanted to erect an altar, and worship God. As he approached the property of Araunah, this gentleman offered the king his threshing floor and all the requirements for an altar and a worship offering. David said he would buy it and Araunah said he would gladly give it. Then David protested that he must buy it as he would not offer to the Lord that which cost him nothing. (II Samuel 24:18-25.)

      We cannot divorce the spiritual from the material.

      The story of David and Araunah highlights the material expression of the spiritual.

      Paul talks about maintaining the spiritual glow and being fervent in spirit (Romans 12:11). The phrase, "fervent in spirit" literally means boiling in spirit. Boiling reminds us of steam, which may be used to create a shrill whistle or to drive a powerful locomotive. So the steam of a boiling spirit may be expressed in pious "amens" or in practical commitment to the values of life and service.

      True spirituality is more than feelings. It is action. A crowd had gathered around a carter, whose horse and cart had been damaged beyond repair, by an accident. Like others around him, one spectator was loud in expressing his feelings of sympathy when the renowned John Bright's father, who was in the crowd, turned to him and putting his hand in his pocket, said: "I feel five pounds, how much dost thou feel?"

      In Acts 10 we read the story of Cornelius, a Gentile who embraced the gospel. The fourth verse quotes the words of God's messenger to Cornelius: "Thy prayers and shine alms are come up for a memorial before God." Prayer and money-giving stand side by side in true spirituality. The giving of money is not a less spiritual act than praying. Both are acts of worship.

      Christianity is the religion of the Word made flesh. That unique event sets a pattern for all life. Involvement is the principle and practicality of true spirituality. Spirituality must always be "earthed." Someone has said: "The more you are interested in the Incarnation, the more you must be concerned about drains."

      Daniel Hone was a noted spiritualist of the 19th century. He rubbed shoulders with the potentates of the earth. He spent weeks at a time in the palace of the Czar of Russia. On one of these occasions he de-materialised some of the royal jewels. They were found later in his hip pocket.

      It is as impossible to de-materialise the spiritual as it is to de-materialise royal jewels. True spirituality will find its way into pockets, purses and all material things.

      Stewardship in all things is the essence of spirituality.

      When we speak of the stewardship of money, it is probable that most people think about the giving of money but stewardship goes beyond that. It has been suggested that, at the final judgment, three questions will be asked concerning money. How much did you make? How did you make it? How did you use it?

      There is cynicism in the statement that money talks but it is true that what man is ready to do for money and what he does with it, speaks volumes concerning him.

      Three questions may be asked about the making of money: Would Christ make money this way? What does making money this way do to others? What does making money this way do to me?

      Long ago, a bishop said at an Anglo-Catholic congress: "It is folly, it is madness to suppose you can worship

      Jesus in the Sacrament when you are sweating Him in the bodies and souls of His children."

      The well-known hymn: "In the Cross of Christ I glory" was written on the deck of a slave ship. If professing Christians or nominally Christian nations had asked the question, "What does making money this way do to others--and ourselves?" is it likely that there would have been slave ships? We are beyond the days of slavery but what of making money out of drugs, including the socially respectable drug, alcohol, slum tenements, any form of sweating or exploitation, armaments, gambling or anything that in any way injures our fellow men and constitutes a social evil?

      In recent years, the question of church investment has been raised. From this starting point, individual responsibility in investment has been emphasised. At the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in January 1975, a motion was presented concerning investment in South Africa, where there is racial discrimination and exploitation. Investments show a high return. The motion urged the withdrawal of all investment. Among the various

points of view expressed, a question was raised as to whether the church should speak on such matters. Over the years, in various connections, I have heard this question raised and never have I been able to escape the conviction that the church, as a prophetic community, is committed to speak on any issue where moral principles are involved. A responsible community cannot escape the call for responsible action.

      Good giving does not atone for bad making. A modern Robin Hood regularly distributed toys at a children's hospital, but the virtue of his generosity was destroyed by the disclosure that he stole from his employer to enable him to buy the toys. This may be regarded as a strange perversion but the combination of bad making and good giving can be more subtle. I recall commenting on the large gifts of a successful businessman, whereupon a friend observed that, whenever he read of such gifts he could never escape the thought of what the business methods of this benefactor's business had meant to him and others in small businesses.

      The end does not justify the means. The good end of charity does not atone for any form of gambling as a means of making money.

      I was once questioned on TV about my attitude to making money. My reply was that I would make as much money as I could, provided it was made legitimately without any form of exploitation of others and provided I kept my sense of stewardship. Diligence and the fruits of diligence, are a stewardship.

      The making of money may build character, possession of it can destroy character.

      The statement that riches are deceitful is not true because Jesus made it, Jesus said this because it is true (Matt. 13:22).

      There is a legend that Moses used to play on a shepherd's pipe as he minded the sheep of his father-in-law. The time came when it was thought that it was unworthy to say that the lips of the great Moses had touched a

common shepherd's pipe so they gilded it with gold, but then it refused to play.

      Money is but one form of wealth and is commonly a symbol of wealth. Whatever the form, it easily becomes a status symbol. Two neighbours were talking about some new neighbours. One said, "I have heard that the new people are very nice." "Have you heard that?" said the other. "I have heard that they have not a penny to bless themselves with." It is a sad day when we lose sight of the fact that what we have to live for is far more important than what we have to live on.

      To possess our wealth rather than be possessed by it is the essence of stewardship.

      Spending is an important aspect of the use of money.

      As the Church grew wealthy in property, various men and movements in the Middle Ages raised protests and put forward the ideal of apostolic poverty. Whatever we think about apostolic poverty, as an ideal, we see that the real principle being advocated was that of simple living. A resolution of the 1975 Federal Conference of Churches of Christ emphasised our responsibility as keepers of the earth, which is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. Among other things, the resolution put forward the principle of simple living in a world divided into haves and have-nots. "Therefore we commit ourselves to seek a simpler style of life--less consumptive, more concerned; less greedy, more sharing and caring--a life of Christian simplicity."

      All this is in line with the call of World Christian Action and Action for World Development to the affluent world, to make radical changes in its life-style, not as a means to charity, however necessary that may be, but according to the dictates of justice. If Christianity is to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, Christians must lead the way, not merely with prophetic words, but with prophetic lives that radically challenge the affluent way of life.

      While simple living is relative in relation to different cultures and situations, it is a principle in the light of which we must constantly examine our standards and

spending. While any particular want may be satisfied collective wants are insatiable. The danger of an affluent society is that the sky is the limit and multiple luxuries can be rationalised as necessities.

      In spite of our Christian profession, it is so easy for us to be squeezed into the mould of the world around us. Increased income and wealth are readily the occasion of increased consumption, the multiplication of things and extras. As I have read, the lead of J. Arthur Rank's father is relevant. As a Christian, when he prospered, he set his personal income at a fixed, modest level and dedicated the rest of his profits to the kingdom of God.

      Stewardship in spending calls for careful discernment concerning necessary and unnecessary spending.

      Laws do not provide the framework of Christianity, but responsibility is a key principle.

      Good stewards will be responsible in the making, possession and spending of money.

      One Sunday morning, a preacher made a strong appeal for increased giving. After the service, the deacons waited on him and wanted to know why he was asking for more money. Is it dry rot in the pulpit? No, he replied, it is not dry rot in the pulpit, it is worms in the pews.

      The question arises whether our offering is giving or paying. With all its shortcomings, the church is a centre of service and all who really commit themselves in the fellowship of the Church, testify to what it brings into their lives. The fact that in varying degrees Christian light, values and principles are woven into the texture of our civilisation means that indirectly, all receive benefit from the gift of God in Christ. The cost of benefits must be paid for in some way.

      The family had been to church and were discussing the experience around the dinner table. Father did not like all the hymns. Mother said the choir was not top line. Sister thought the organist made a few mistakes. Brother said the sermon was second rate. Then a small boy of the family silenced the conversation when he remarked: "Still, it was not a bad show for ten cents." How do we pay?

      The Jewish practice of tithing--giving a tenth--went back to Abraham. This practice has been emphasised among some Christians. When considering its relevance, we should observe that it does not provide for equality of sacrifice, one principle recognised in taxation. It is in line with this principle that a progressive rate applies in income tax and other forms of taxation. That is, the rate per dollar increases as income or other taxable amounts increase.

      One-tenth of 180 per week involves a greater sacrifice than one-tenth of X200 per week. It is also obvious that a flat rate of giving (or taxing) would not provide for equality of sacrifice if responsibilities differ. Hence, in taxation, deductions are allowed for dependents, health costs education, etc. It is obvious that two people on equal incomes have not equal capacity to give if one has good health and no dependents, while the other has poor health and dependents.

      Tithing, like proportionate taxation, does not properly take into account the capacity to pay and the principle of equality of sacrifice.

      If tithing be advocated, it seems reasonable to suggest that its basis should be taxable income. It should also be recognised that giving is not confined to the church, as such, but includes giving to good causes in the community--hospitals, Red Cross, blind associations' Minus children, Freedom from Hunger, etc.

      The Jews were under law while Christians are under grace; but grace is not an excuse for relaxed effort. The demands of love go beyond the requirements of law. Tithing, as a relic of the law, may be regarded as a starting point for Christians. Many Christians have made tithing a minimum for their giving and have proved its practicality as a standard.

      Whatever else may be said about tithing, it does give an example of calculated giving. Paul emphasised this principle when making an appeal for sharing. "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper (I Cor. 16:2) (II Cor. 8:12).

      Paul emphasises giving according to capacity and giving regularly. Casual, irregular, arbitrary, emotional giving to emotional causes and appeals is not according to Christian principle. The calculation of giving within a budget, according to capacity to pay, is a real part of New Testament Christianity.

      As tax is deducted from the pay packet before we get it, we may find it very helpful to deduct a calculated amount from each pay packet and place it in a savings account, from which we then draw all our giving. I found this most helpful over many years when on a regular salary.

      It is recorded that Thomas à Becket's mother weighed her boy each year on his birthday against money, clothes and provisions which she gave to the poor. This was her system of weighing and comparing. May we take a lead from this in weighing our giving against our spending?

      For all, there is necessary spending but for most, there is also an area of what may be called "surplus" spending. This is a point of comparison for Christians. Is our giving determined by our surplus spending or is our surplus spending determined by our giving? The comparison may be a very salutary piece of self-examination.

      In II Corinthians, Paul was seeking to stimulate the Corinthian Christians by a comparison with the Macedonian Christians. "I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want" (II Cor. 8:14-15).

      In certain giving, it is good that we compare our position with that of those who are unfortunate. A mature Christian once remarked to me that he would sooner be the one asked than in the position of those for whom the asking was made and he went on to say that it was a privilege to be asked. We recall that our Lord said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

      Our giving should be related not only to the need but also to the giving of others. Within the brotherhood of the Kingdom, there are those who give up the opportunities

of the commercial, industrial and professional world and pay for their training, without reward for such, in order to engage in Christian service at home and abroad. Paul's plea "that there may be equality" seems relevant here.

      In business a proportion of income, of necessity, is ploughed back into the business with the result that eventually a large estate may accrue. In all cases an attempt is made to save so that out of income an estate of some dimensions is built up.

      Does our stewardship cease with death? Proper sharing with those who have helped in the building of an estate (farm or business) and provision for dependents--widow, widower, children--is a proper responsibility for all.

      What of leaving estates to non-dependent sons, daughters, nieces and nephews and others?

      Traditionally estates of both Christians and non-Christians are left to non-dependents--Christian or non-Christian--whose standard of living is commonly indulged, while nothing or little is left to the kingdom of God.

      Where beneficiaries are committed Christians, the stewardship may be continued but where they are not Christian, all Christian stewardship is cancelled.

      When responsibilities have been discharged during life and there are not dependents, should there not be a reversal of tradition and sentiment so that the kingdom of God sits up to the table of estates, while others eat of the crumbs that fall from the table?

      If this seems radical, in the light of tradition and sentiment, we should remember that Christianity is a dangerous revolution.

      The basis of all stewardship is exemplified in the Macedonian Christians who, as Paul put it, "first gave themselves to the Lord" (II Cor. 8:5). All true giving is devotional giving. In Romans 12 Paul opens with a call for consecration and then presents the virtues that flow from commitment. In commenting on this chapter

a noted expositor wrote: "The great principle that covers all conduct and may be broken up into all minuteness of practical directions is self-surrender. Give yourselves up to God; that is the Alpha and Omega of all goodness, and wherever the foundation is really laid, on it will rise the fair building of a life which is a temple, adorned with whatsoever things are lovely and of good report."

      Shortly after the middle of the 16th century, the church in Scotland broke with Rome and was established as an independent State Church embracing Protestant principles. After a struggle, which extended over a century, it was established as a Presbyterian Church. During the 18th century, secessions divided the Presbyterians into Seceder Burgher Old Lights, Seceder Burgher New Lights, Seceder Anti-Burgher Old Lights and Seceder Anti-Burgher New Lights. To these was added the Relief Church. Independent movements emerged from the Church of Scotland and 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 18th century, Archibald McLean and Robert Carmichael left the Church of Scotland and joined the Glassites. Within a year, however they left the Glassites and together accepted immersion of believers as the true form of baptism. Not knowing of a regular Baptist church in Scotland, they established and became co-ministers of what came to be known as the Scotch Baptist Church in Edinburgh in 1766. From this beginning, Scotch Baptist churches spread to England and Wales. Owing to the strong influence of McLean, they were sometimes known as McLeanist Baptists.

      Early in the 19th century, several independent congregations were established in Ireland, Scotland and England. They grew out of close Bible study and commonly adopted immersion of believers as baptism, weekly observance of the Lord's Supper and mutual exhortation.

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

of Christ emphasising the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Alexander Campbell presided over the first co-operative conference of the movement in Edinburgh in 1847.

      "No taxation without representation" was a cry supported by throwing tea chests into the sea at Boston, U. S. A. Pioneering, independence and revolution marked the people of new frontiers. It was in this spirit that, in the 1790s, 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 Baptist Churches in Vermont and neighbouring States. A few years later Barton Warren Stone and others separated from the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky. These separate movements at least experienced exchange of ideas and commonly rejected the use of historical, ecclesiastical creeds; they chose to be known simply as Christians, rejecting denominational names; they emphasised the authority of the Scriptures, liberty of opinion, the Lordship of Christ and personal commitment to Him; they rejected the Calvinistic doctrines of man, election and conversion; under the leadership of Stone they emphasised 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 the outstanding leaders of the people who came to be known as Disciples of Christ.

      Thomas Campbell's father was a Roman Catholic who fought under Wolfe at Quebec. On his return to Ireland he left the Roman Catholic Church and became an Episcopalian. Thomas eventually became a minister in the Seceder Anti-Burgher Old Light Presbyterian Church. As a representative of Northern Ireland, he went to Scotland to try to negotiate the union of the Seceders. Fortunately, this union was achieved in 1820.

      Medical advice led Thomas to the United States of America in 1807, where he entered into a ministry in western Pennsylvania with the Seceder Presbyterian Church. However, 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 theology of Presbyterians 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 a lone.

      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 left Northern Ireland, left his wife and family in the care of his oldest son, Alexander Campbell. 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 reasonable that some of these contacts would have rubbed off, but there were also stirrings within. It was when the Declaration and Address had come off the press that 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 staccato 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 suffer 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 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. These differences led to separation and about the same time, a union was effected between the movement led by Stone and that now largely led by Alexander Campbell. Disciples of Christ was adopted as the name of this fellowship of churches.

      Across the world today there are Baptists and Baptists and Churches of Christ and Churches of Christ. Both communions have a strong grain of individualism in their make-up. Hence there is not complete uniformity in either body. While some of the differences that led to the original division do not now obtain, in general there is still a mixture of agreements and differences. There is agreement in an emphasis upon the final authority of the New Testament, in evangelistic concern, in a congregational

principle of church organisation, the nature of the church, the priesthood of all believers and the immersion of believers as the form of baptism. However, there is a fairly keenly felt difference concerning the ministry and the meaning of baptism in relation to salvation and church membership. Added to these differences, consultations between Baptists and Churches of Christ have disclosed a real difference in history and purpose and in ethos, emphases and attitudes. While there is not uniformity in either body, these differences become apparent when we dig beneath the surface.

      In the Declaration and Address Thomas Campbell 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."

      Flowing from the emphasis upon the authority of the New Testament here was the seed of the principle of restoration which was developed by Alexander Campbell and others as a principle of reformation and a means to unity. These pioneers saw the ideal of unity as an essential part of New Testament Christianity and also saw the restoration of New Testament Christianity in other respects as a way of overcoming divisions and realising the New Testament ideal of unity. They saw that there is one body just as clearly as they saw other New Testament teaching concerning baptism, the church, the Lord's Supper, ministry and mission.

      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 in 1852. Later in the next year a definite move was made with a meeting in 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 United States of America visited Australia and stimulated the churches in a variety of ways.

      Running right through the history of Churches of Christ there are evident emphases that gave rise to the movement and which belong to the vision that made us and keeps us a people. These emphases are upon a universal authority, a universal creed, a universal priesthood, a universal name, a universal spirit, an evangelistic concern a plea for New Testament Christianity as understood in terms of doctrine, ordinances and life and spirit and a church which is one united fellowship that the world may believe that God sent His Son to fulfil a mission of reconciliation.

      Back in 1959 I was one of six Australian churchmen who visited Christians behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. The visit was the result of Conference resolutions affirming the desirability of such visits. Our hosts in Russia were representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptist Churches. The latter body, with over half a million members at that time, is the result of a union of Churches of Christ as we know them and the Baptist Churches in Russia.

      One evening in Moscow, we were discussing with our hosts the relation of Church and State in our country and theirs. At a stage of the discussion one of the Orthodox priests said, "My grandfather was a priest, my father was a priest, I love the Church and would die for it." He appeared to me to speak with great sincerity. Some time later in a Federal Conference of Churches of Christ I was moved to repeat the statement of the Russian Orthodox priest and to make a parallel statement for myself to the effect that my grandparents were members of Churches of Christ, my parents were members of Churches of Christ, my life has been lived out in Churches of Christ and I can say that I love this brotherhood of churches.

      Because denominational church membership is so much an accident of birth, it could be said that I am a member of Churches of Christ because I was born into this communion of Christians. But responsible membership calls for responsible decision and continuing conviction. I do not hesitate to say that I have remained a member of Churches of Christ because of personal decision and continuing convictions.

      I think it is true that all of us take positions, not because we think there are no difficulties or no unanswered questions in such positions but because, to us, there are less difficulties and less unanswered questions in these positions than in others. Similarly, we ally ourselves

with certain causes or groups not because there are no difficulties or unanswered questions for us, but because, in this cause or group, there are less difficulties and less unanswered questions than in others.

      Churches of Christ hold my membership because of truths and emphases preserved in their tradition. I hasten to point out that Churches of Christ have reacted to tradition and would point up the observation of Tertullian that our Lord said, "I am the truth, not the tradition." We must recognise, however, that tradition has different meanings and there is a meaning which applies within Churches of Christ, in spite of their reaction to the general concept. The meaning to which I refer is tradition as the common understanding of the teaching of the New Testament, the continued observation of this understanding in the life of the church, and the common body of developed practices not explicitly given in the New Testament but expedients judged not to be contrary to given New Testament principles and precedents. We may speak of the ethos of Churches of Christ which takes in not only their understanding and practices, but their mood and spirit and outlook. This ethos belongs to their tradition.

      Within this meaning of tradition there are major emphases which I will attempt to gather up in this chapter.

      There are various emphases which are not peculiar to Churches of Christ. Possibly most, if not all of the things to which we try to bear witness, may be found emphasised here and there among other Christian communions. Evangelistic concern, baptism as the immersion of believers, a doctrine and practice of the priesthood of all believers, a congregational type of church organisation, for instance, are found emphasised by others. This list could be extended. Our witness consists in the gathering together into one tradition, the various emphases that are found among others.

      Within our history it has been said that we are a peculiar people in not being peculiar. In colloquial terms, that means that we are not "odd bods." In more theological terms, we have emphasised the principle of

catholicity with the understanding that what is catholic is universal, apostolic, authoritative and uniting. These concepts hold together. The apostolic witness is a bearer of authority for all Christians. Whatever developed outside the apostolic witness or developed beyond it and is contrary to it, is not universally acceptable. What is universally acceptable is uniting, while the sectional is divisive.

      Within the understanding of the Apostolic witness there is an emphasis upon divinely given truth, in the form of principles and practices. Whatever developments may necessarily take place in thought and practice there are things that are given which provide a foundation and an anchor. There can be no departure in principle from what is divinely given.

      An emphasis upon the Lordship of Christ has led to an emphasis upon the New Testament as the primary and final witness to the mind and will of Christ. Here is the Apostolic witness to divinely given truth. Our final authority is found in the New Testament. All other sources concerning Christian faith and practice are derivative and subject to the finality of the New Testament.

      It is upon these premises that Churches of Christ have emphasised the restoration of simple, essential Christianity as approved in the New Testament. This has carried the assumption that in some areas at least there has been a departure from what we are pleased to call New Testament Christianity and has involved a call to build, according to the Apostolic witness, in the interests of truth, unity and mission. In all humility, we must recognise that our concern is for our understanding of what is New Testament Christianity. In this mood, we should see ourselves as seekers after all truth, rather than as possessors of all truth.

      With an emphasis upon the realisation of New Testament Christianity, Christianity has been understood as essentially personal and moral. It is the response of persons to a Person. An historical watchword among Churches of Christ has been "No creed but Christ." Among

other things, this has emphasised the truth that loyalty to a Person is the heart of Christianity. We may formulate doctrines about Him and express these in creeds and confessions but the universal essential is loyalty to Him. Christianity calls for a responsible moral choice which is expressed in a new life and spirit. There is no magic in correct doctrines or rites or ordinances or holy days.

      In line with this understanding of Christianity, the Church is a community of people who, having been called by God, have made a personal response to the call. Having been quickened by the Spirit through the witness of the gospel, they have been born from above. We are not born into the Church. It is the community of the reborn, the fellowship of the Spirit, that is, a community of people sharing in the gift of the Holy Spirit.

      It is in harmony with the nature of Christianity and the church that baptism is emphasised as an initial part of our personal response to the Person. As a responsible response and choice through faith, in baptism we put on Christ and are incorporated into His body, the church. There is no magic in baptism; it is a moral or, if you like, a spiritual process. Through faith, repentance and confession expressed in baptism, we appropriate the grace of Christ and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, not by baptism. Baptism is not an addition to faith, repentance and confession. In normal circumstances these are indivisible, a logical whole, even if, sometimes, formally separated. As a death to self, burial in Christ and rising to walk in newness of life, baptism is expressed as immersion in water.

      On the inner side, baptism is a spiritual rebirth. Without this, there is no real baptism. The inner reality is expressed in the outer act of immersion in water. Ideally, as presented in the New Testament, there is no separation between the inner and the outer aspects of baptism.

      Churches of Christ have strongly emphasised that the church is a community with a gospel. It is not a group of people guessing about God, but a community of people who share a conviction, born of the experience of the

good news of God's grace. To the church is given the ministry of reconciliation. It is the bearer of the good news that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This gospel calls the church into mission with an evangelistic knife-edge.

      As a community with a mission, it is a fellowship of priests. All are priests whose task it is to introduce others to Christ. There is not a priestly class in the church responsible for ministry and a non-priestly class not responsible for ministry. All are called to be ministers in the New Testament sense of the word. While it is recognised that some should be trained for service in leadership, theirs is a ministry within the total ministry of the church. Their ministry is simply functional, carrying the responsibility of leading others in ministry. They are ministers to ministers. While their ministry may be specialised, and their calling blessed in a setting apart (ordination) and made possible by practical support, they are not set apart to either exclusive rights or practices. The Lord's Supper, which is observed weekly as a central act of worship, is not something which is administered to others by a priestly class. It is an act of fellowship in which the whole congregation is led by any member who is spiritually and practically qualified to preside and lead in worship with other members leading in prayer and Scripture reading.

      An integral part of the vision that brought Churches of Christ into being was the New Testament ideal of the church as essentially one. Our Lord said, "I will build My church." He spoke of one Shepherd with one flock. With His dying breath He prayed that His followers should all be one. On this basis Paul said, "there is one body". While there is an invisible aspect of the church, in that only the Lord knows those who are truly His, the New Testament presents a clear picture of a visible church Its ordinances, its worship, its life and witness are visible. As it is visible, its unity or oneness must be visible. Our Lord prayed that His followers should be one that the world may believe. The gospel of reconciliation must be demonstrated in clear and convincing terms. Unity is a

vital aspect of New Testament Christianity. The ideal of unity belongs to New Testament Christianity just as surely as do baptism, the Lord's Supper, preaching the gospel and new life. The practice of New Testament Christianity is at once a means to unity and a realisation of the ideal of unity. In the light of the New Testament, Churches of Christ historically have seen any kind of division, racial, social, denominational, as contrary to the will of Christ. We cannot rest content with the compromise of division any more than we can be content with other compromises.

      The church is a mature community in which we accept one another along with all the differences which characterise us. We are bound together by a uniformity which flows from our acceptance of Christ as Lord. Any community calls for a basic uniformity but community also calls for diversity. The demands of uniformity must be balanced by the elasticity of diversity. Just as we differ physically we also differ mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Understandings, interpretations, opinions, attitudes, emphases, tastes differ because of inborn nature and because we are conditioned by different environments. As a mature community the church lives by a principle of liberty as well as by a principle of authority. True maturity enables us to preserve fellowship, in spite of differences, by exercising the principle of liberty. As Paul put it, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Cor. 3:17).

      In my membership and understanding of Churches of Christ, three over-arching or under-girding principles have stood out with impressive validity: authority, catholicity and liberty.

      Paul said that he received a heavenly vision and was not disobedient to it (Acts 26:19). Obedience to our vision is our responsibility.

      In a comparison between Christianity and other historical religions, the point is highlighted that Christianity is a religion with a world vision. The original witnesses were commissioned to go into all the world. Unlimited missionary outreach is regarded as the responsibility of the church. It is a religion which is not confined to any nation, race or culture. As Christians, we rejoice in a fellowship that girdles the earth.

      Within this world vision it is quite natural that the word "ecumenical" should find a place in the Christian vocabulary. It is a word which we take over from the New Testament by transliteration rather than by translation. In such passages as Luke 2:11, Matthew 24:14 and Romans 10:18, we find the original word, "oikoumene", which is translated as "habitable world." By transliteration we arrive at the word "ecumenical". Whatever is ecumenical seeks to embrace the whole world. This is no new concept; it is as old as Christianity.

      The ecumenical ideal has been reflected in the British and Foreign Bible Society, Christian Endeavour, Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. and the former International Missionary Society. In fellowship and service these agencies have risen above boundaries and barriers.

      A world missionary conference at Edinburgh in 1910 was the first of a series of world missionary conferences and a beginning of other ecumenical conferences on Faith and Order, Life and Work and Youth work. Out of these conferences there emerged the World Council of Churches in 1948, as an instrument of the modern ecumenical movement. It is not the only expression of ecumenism but is a most significant expression in this age.

      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 the 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 the 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 in 1946, unanimously ratified the acceptance of the invitation. Subsequent to the formation of the World Council of Churches, the membership of Churches of Christ in Australia has been questioned in various States. Local churches differ in their attitude to the Council. State Conferences of Churches of Christ in New South Wales and 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 World Council of Churches was defeated.

      It should be clearly understood that the World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches, not a church. Its constitution says: "The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Its purpose is to promote ecumenism through common action, study, sharing, relationship and conference.

      Member churches retain their individuality, sovereignty and integrity, similar to the position of member nations of the United Nations. Membership simply means cooperation, not union. By co-operation member churches express the gift of unity in Christ. No one would claim perfection for the church, but responsible church members do not withdraw from the church because of its imperfections. Similarly, responsible membership in the World Council of Churches precludes withdrawal because of imperfections. In both instances what is called for is responsible criticism within.

      As in the whole church and as in any particular communion there is a variety of thought, so in the World

Council of Churches there is variety of thought, viewpoints 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 to grapple with differences and divisions in a mature way.

      In the birth pangs of Churches of Christ there was a marked reaction to division among Christians. Barton Warren Stone, a prominent pioneer, claimed that disunity and disorder in the church supported the Prince of Darkness and undermined the Prince of Peace. To him, disunity was contrary to the will of God, and made Heaven mourn and Hell rejoice. He lamented the baleful spirit of sectarianism which, he believed, ruined the Christian world. It is as foreign from Christianity as Hell is from Heaven. Another of the pioneers, Thomas Campbell, wrote 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." It is true that this strong reaction to division was in part due to the sectarian bitterness which showed up too often. A later leader among Churches of Christ wrote of division as the scandal of Christianity.

      With this original vision and tradition it would be surprising if Churches of Christ did not today share in the reaction to division which characterises modern ecumenism.

      The World Conference on Faith and Order at Edinburgh in 1937 made this statement: "We humbly acknowledge that our divisions are contrary to the will of Christ, and we pray God in His mercy to shorten the days of our separation and to guide us by His Spirit into fullness of unity." At the second assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in 1954 a report was accepted which included these words: "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." Ten years later Vatican II, in a statement on ecumenism, said: "The Church established by Christ the Lord is, indeed, one and unique. Yet many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true heritage of Jesus Christ. To be sure, all proclaim themselves to be disciples of the Lord, but their convictions clash and their paths diverge, as though Christ Himself were divided. Without doubt, this discord openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the good news to every creature."

      This reaction to division does not mean that ecumenism is concerned only with unity. It very clearly lays emphasis upon renewal, mission and unity. As we read in John 17 that our Lord prayed that His followers should be sanctified and all be one that the world might believe, ecumenism sees renewal, mission and unity as indivisible. There is a mutuality of stimulus and realisation in these three. Stress is laid on the ideal of the whole church preaching the whole gospel to the whole world. Minutes of the Central Committee of the World Council of the following sentences: the gospel is always the calling of 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."

      Ecumenism stresses the point that unity is the gift of Christ and it is recognised that there is a spiritual unity between all Christians. This unity is real and deep but it is not adequately expressed. We must recognise that there is real division as well as real unity. While we may be united as Christians we are divided as churches. When there is discussion of the nature of the unity we seek, what is in mind is an adequate and full expression of Christ's gift of unity. The matter of concern is that overtly we present a picture of division rather than a convincing picture of unity.

      While there may be an invisible aspect of the church, the church as presented in the New Testament is something visible. Its ordinances, worship, life, ministry and organisation are all visible. The church which continues the ministry of Christ, proclaiming and demonstrating the gospel of reconciliation, is visible. This is the church which we know and which the world knows. A visible church necessitates a visible unity.

      Prior to 1961, a statement concerning unity went through the process of study and discussion in churches around the world. As a report it was discussed in the New Delhi Assembly of the World Council of Churches and in its final form adopted by the Assembly. "We believe that the unity which is both God's will and his gift to his Church is being made visible as all in each place, who are baptised into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour, are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all and who, at the same time, are united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls his people. It is for such unity that we believe we must pray and work" (p. 116).

      At Nairobi in 1975 the World Council Assembly endorsed the idea of conciliar fellowship as something more immediate as an idea though not as a repudiation of the New Delhi statement but an elaboration of it.

      Within ecumenism great growth has been achieved. We have been brought to the place of believing in one another in spite of differences and divisions. Rivalry is seen as something to be left behind respect for one another's integrity.

      Ecumenism is not a fruit of no convictions. People with no convictions have nothing to contribute. What is called for is the contribution of convictions. We would not be living responsibly if we surrendered our convictions

unless shown to be mistaken. Equally, we would not be living responsibly if we did not share our convictions. Any truth which we have grasped is a trust. As stewards we fail in our trust if we isolate ourselves from others just as we fail if we hide our light under a bushel rather than place it on a candlestick. Ecumenism has generated an expectancy, provided an opportunity and produced an atmosphere for sharing convictions. This may not always be comfortable but the pain is necessary to growth.

      We cannot over-stress the point that isolation is a dangerous thing. It does queer things to people and groups. So commonly it leads to fear, suspicion, distortion and misunderstanding. It is a bad thing for any person or group, or nation or denomination to live in isolation. Ecumenism calls us out of isolation into the confrontation of dialogue and conference. Much has been achieved this way. We are all conditioned by the group which provides the medium of our development. Denominationalism is one such conditioning medium. Our understanding of truth is conditioned by the denomination to which we belong which is commonly the one into which we are born. Under such conditioning and in isolation, our insights are partial. Denominationalism is self-perpetuating. We are likely to move in parallel grooves unless there are some cross-currents of confrontation. In studying and searching together, through conference and exchange there is the possibility of deliverance from our conditioned prejudices and partialities and the grasping of the fullness of truth. It is only within fellowship and friendship that responsible frankness is possible. Frankness in isolation can be irresponsible. We urge nations and industrial groups to enter into responsible conference and not to walk out and slam doors. The physician must take his own medicine if he is to live responsibly.

      Sometimes, within ecumenism, warnings have been issued about co-operation on the ground that it can be an opiate, blinding us to the shame of division, and it may all too easily be accepted as a substitute for fullness of unity. However, Nairobi strongly recommended co-operation right down to the local level. We must

recognise that co-operation is a way of expressing Christ's gift of unity. It is also a way of achieving things that could never be achieved in separation. Furthermore, it is a form of courtship as a prelude to fullness of unity. Through co-operation we get to know and understand one another, which is a very necessary road to progress.

      The quality of ecumenism is the very quality of Christianity itself. Paul said: "Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:5-8). The spirit of true ecumenism is humility. Pride can be rooted in the age and size of old and large denominations while it can be rooted in a feeling of spiritual superiority in younger and smaller reforming denominations. Isolation from fellowship can also be rooted in pride. Arrogance of any kind is always contrary to the spirit of Christ. True ecumenism expresses itself in a humility which is ready to receive as well as to give. To live responsibly we must both receive and give.

      Pioneers of Churches of Christ called Christians to responsible fellowship. Thomas Campbell in 1809 said: "Till you associate, consult and advise together; and in a friendly and Christian manner explore the subject, nothing can be done" (Declaration and Address, p. 14). His son, Alexander, thirty years later made the following proposal: "I propose that a congress of all protestant parties (and if anyone 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 story is told of a lady who was a notorious back seat driver. One day she was driving the car and got into a real jam. There were cars behind, in front and on either side. Excitedly she turned to her husband who was sitting next to her, and exclaimed, Oh dear, oh dear, what shall I do? Quickly he replied, Climb over into the back seat and you will soon get an idea.

      Deciding what to do is akin to the difficulty, which we sometimes face, of discerning duty. In Ephesians 6 children are admonished to obey their parents for this is the first commandment with promise. Luke's Gospel tells of a man whom Jesus called to follow Him and who asked leave first to go home and discharge his duty to his father. Our Lord came back with a strong word in which he told the man to let his father look after himself "but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:59-60). On another occasion our Lord pointed out that there would be instances where His coming would be an occasion of division inasmuch as father will be against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother (Luke 12:51-53). In Luke 14:26 Jesus said: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

      These various passages present the principle of obedience to parents and also the principle of obedience to the kingdom. In many instances the path of duty is perfectly clear but sometimes there are tensions. The two principles will frequently lead us along the same path, but there will be situations in which there is conflict. It may be said that Ephesians 6 and kindred passages give us the normal principle of mutual loyalty in parent-child relationships. The other passages cited point up situational conflict. Normally, our Christian duty is family loyalty but in particular situations the demands of Christ and His kingdom may transcend and cancel out normal duty. Within any situation it is our responsibility to discern Christian duty.

      Situational conflict between family loyalty and loyalty to the kingdom of God is but one instance of the life situation tensions which we may have to face. Given Christian principles, values and loyalties cannot be set aside but in different situations the application of these may differ. Sometimes situations are such that there may be conflict within and between principles, values and loyalties. Love is both indulgent and demanding. Mercy and justice are both at the heart of love. In a given situation, indulgence and demand may be in conflict and we have to decide which application of love we must follow. Christian love includes love for our own, love for neighbour and love for enemies. Situations can arise in which these various outreaches of love suffer conflict. Sometimes there may be a conflict between the truth and concern or love for a person. It would appear that the truth would do harm to someone who should not be harmed. What is our duty in such a situation?

      Life is often complex and not divided into clear blacks and whites but is interspersed with greys. In the face of this complexity Situation Ethics says that persons are more important than things. Persons are ends, while laws are means. As means, laws must be subject to persons. Further, love alone is the ultimate criterion for all life. What love demands in any specific instance depends upon the situation. All moral decisions are determined, therefore, by the situation guided by consideration of persons rather than laws and motivated by love and love alone. Writers in this school of thought emphasise that by love is meant love as it is presented in the New Testament and not as popularly interpreted.

      I believe it must be recognised by all that Situation Ethics is open to misunderstanding and is subject to the abuse of permissiveness in the hands of the immature and irresponsible. It has not got all the answers to life's complexities but it has a real contribution to make. In discerning duty we cannot leave out the situation nor can we leave out other considerations. It is necessary to see life as a whole. Moral decision making requires a consideration of persons and laws, the principle of love and

other principles or values, society as a whole and the particular situation. Duty will not be discerned with one eye.

      What I have been writing seems naturally to lead to the question of compromise. This is a "dirty" word among Christians and there can be no question that, in principle, Christianity calls us to rise above compromise. However, the question must be faced as to whether, in the limits and complexities of life, we can avoid all compromise.

      I hasten to assert that there are impossible compromises. One of the colourful martyrs of the second century was Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. An infuriated crowd called for him and he was brought before the governor, who said, "Curse Christ, and I will let you go." To this Polycarp made his celebrated reply: "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has never done me wrong; how then can I revile Him now, my King who has saved me?" Perpetua in North Africa was another Christian who was imprisoned. Her mother and brothers were Christians but her father was not. During her imprisonment her baby was taken away from her. Roman officers tried hard to win her to save her life by denying Christ. When she was brought before the magistrate her father was present and holding up her baby, he begged her to deny her faith. Finally she said to him: "Father, do you see that jug on the ground? Can I call it by any other name than what it is?" No, of course you can't," he said. "Well, in the same way I cannot call myself anything else but a Christian," she replied. In spite of all attempts to persuade her to deny Christ, she accepted death in the arena. When Martin Luther was brought before the Emperor and was pressed for a plain answer concerning charges against him, he said: "My conscience must submit to the Word of God: to act against conscience is unholy and dangerous; and therefore I cannot and will not retract. So help me God. Amen." When further pressed he finally said: "Here stand 1. I can do nought else. God help me. Amen."

      In history and in our experience, it is obvious that truth and duty have been served by those who have refused to be involved in impossible compromises. When to us there are clear blacks and whites, duty is clear and we can do no other.

      While strongly emphasising that there are impossible compromises, I believe that in the limits of life we cannot escape inevitable compromises. The point has been made that in order to live and fulfil His ministry Christ had to eat bread, possibly produced by sweated labour. If it be said that that is conjecture, what of our own situation? Many Christians would refuse to invest money in a brewery or an armaments industry. However, if we simply lodge money in a bank investing in term deposits or the like, we become part of the financial structure in which breweries and armaments industries and the like are financed by banks. While we avoid compromise through direct investment, we cannot escape inevitable compromise through indirect investment. Some Christians believe that participation in war is a compromise that cannot be made. If those same Christians grow wheat and produce wool and the like, their products will feed and clothe the army, the navy and the air force as well as others. For these same Christians there is a similar dilemma in regard to taxes. Part of the tax will be used for purposes about which they have no question, but part will be used for war purposes. In the war situation, food lines often depend upon the whole war machine and the conscientious objector to war is involved in an inevitable compromise if he eats and lives while refusing all participation in the war effort. In the limits and practicalities of the various instances cited, there is inevitable compromise which we must humbly admit. Careful thought and observation may add to the illustrations. Such inevitable compromises are not of our choosing but living within the structure of society they are inescapable.

      Further, I believe that the recognition of the complexity as well as the limitations of life, involves us in responsible compromises. By using rather extreme illustrations and majoring on exceptions, sometimes tending

to make the exception the rule, the Situationists do highlight conflicts between persons and principles and love and laws and so make a case for responsible compromise.

      We should guard against making exceptions the rule, but life does call for exceptions. How often are we confronted with hard cases, complexity and conflicts of principles.

      Our Lord presented the ideal of marriage as an indissoluble partnership. We cannot lose sight of that ideal and should do all we can to maintain it but here, as elsewhere, human limitation sometimes precludes the ideal. Ail that marriage was intended to achieve is destroyed both for husband and wife and for children. Are mistakes which have undermined a relationship and a family to be subject to the sentence of law which knows no possibility of forgiveness by society, no deliverance from a wreckage, no opportunity of renewal in love and relationship? I make no attempt to cover all aspects of the question, but simply note the fact of hard cases and the fact that within the Christian society there are accepted cases of divorce and re-marriage because consideration has been given to persons, situations, forgiveness and possible renewal. In short, there is Christian recognition of compromise in hard and complex cases as responsible compromise.

      Christians in conference at different times and places have resolved that war is contrary to the teachings and spirit of Christ. Such resolutions express the Christian ideal. Facing the problem of human evil quite early in the history of Christianity, the Church developed the concept of a just war--a war fought under a code in the interests of justice and peace. This was regarded as a responsible compromise. Out of this there developed the crusader concept which majored on taking the initiative for a Christian ideal. Because Christian crusaders fought against infidels they tended to forget the code. Only the end mattered, any means were justified. At the initial assembly of the World Council of Churches, Amsterdam 1948, the statement was made that the indiscriminate and wholesale destruction of modern warfare nullifies the concept of a just war. War may be necessary in some circumstances but it is never an act of justice.

      The common position taken by Christians is that war is evil but it is the lesser of the evils with which we are confronted. We are in a position where we do not choose between value and disvalue but between disvalue and disvalue. In the simplest terms, we are faced with a choice between the evil of war and the evil of injustice and oppression. We are under a necessity to choose and cannot escape a compromise. If we choose war in the last resort it is responsible compromise. There is no doubt that the Church and Christians have been constantly involved in this responsible compromise.

      Within the church there are those who take the position of conscientious objection to war and refuse to participate in any war effort. Like other Christians they are faced with the alternatives of war and oppression and injustice. They think that while war may attempt to deal with some particular problem of oppression and injustice it does not deal with the general problem of oppression and injustice, and in itself is not free from the evils which it seeks to alleviate. War which is unbridled violence, is an attempt to cast out Beelzebub by Beelzebub and offers no ultimate solution. Non-violent, long-term, suffering resistance is in the pattern of the Cross. In the immediacy of the situation, however, the conscientious objector does nothing directly to meet the evil of oppression and injustice. He is involved in an immediate compromise. For him, this is a responsible compromise.

      Some Christians accept active involvement in political responsibility and believe that the only way of being effective within our political structure is to ally themselves with a particular parliamentary party. Occasions will arrive in which party decisions are not according to a Christian member's principles. He is out-voted. What should he do? Should he resign from the party and withdraw from political involvement or should he remain where he thinks he can be most effective as a Christian in political life? A decision to remain would be his responsible compromise.

      Abortion on demand appears to be nothing but another expression of a regrettable permissiveness. The sanctity

of human life is rooted in the Christian principles of the worth of the individual, the dignity of human personality and human rights. However, the situation has bearing on particular cases. What of such situations where rape is involved, particularly with a minor, or where the health and life of the mother are involved? May not abortion in such cases be regarded as responsible compromise?

      We recognise that in the course of Christian history, divisions have arisen in the interests of truth. As the fracturing of the body of Christ is contrary to His will, division is a compromise but conscientious Christians have regarded division in certain situations as a responsible compromise. In a changed situation it may be seen that truth is not best served by division, but the whole truth draws us out of separation into unity. To remain in separation is a compromise and to enter into a plan of union may involve some measure of compromise. We may pick a specific example in various plans of union that are current. These provide for baptism according to different understandings and convictions. Baptism may be by immersion, pouring or sprinkling and candidates may be believers or infants. The different teachings and practices exist side by side. Within the fellowship the way is opened for the removal of prejudices. This is but one example within a plan of union. For those who believe in the immersion of believers only, it involves a compromise but some could accept this, provided they were not required to "baptise" an infant and provided that, without prejudice, any member could pursue a change of conviction within the fellowship and provided that any plan of union be not regarded as the ultimate. On such conditions the compromise could be accepted as a responsible compromise in preference to the compromise of division.

      In discerning duty there can be no compromise in loyalty to Christ but in face of the limits and complexities of life there are inevitable compromises and also responsible compromises. So we come back to Paul's admonition: "Live life, then, with a due sense of responsibility, not as those who do not know the meaning and purpose of life, but as those who do."

PAPER-BACK SERIES
"HOW TO GROW AN AUSTRALIAN CHURCH" -- Gordon Moyes $2.25 plus postage
"LETTERS FROM TERTIUS" $2.00 plus postage
"CHURCH GROWTH PRINCIPLES" -- Donald A. McGavran and Win Arn. $2.50 plus postage
"DOWN TO PRESIDE" -- Gordon R. Stirling. $2.50 plus postage

RENEWAL LEAFLET SERIES
"WHEN YOU PRAY"
"WHEN YOU READ"
"WHEN YOU WORSHIP"
"WHEN YOU CARE"
"WHEN YOU WITNESS"
"WHEN YOU GIVE"
$3.00 per 100 copies, plus postage

PROMOTIONAL FOLDERS
"CHURCHES OF CHRIST"
"BAPTISM"
"THE LORD'S SUPPER"
Single copies 10 cents each; 10 copies at 8 cents each.

DISCIPLESHIP MATERIAL
For Juniors: "JESUS YOUR LORD AND FRIEND"
For Teenagers: "MY CHOICE"
For Adults: "A GUIDE TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP"
All are 45 cents each plus postage.

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 $1.00

 

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