Towards the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, independent thinkers in Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian denominations became agitated concerning the faith and practice, and the division of the church. All were moved by a desire to be free of human creeds and authority, to make the Bible their only rule, to adopt the simplicity of primitive Christianity, and to exercise the right of private judgment. Outstanding among these pioneers were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, father and son, who migrated from Northern Ireland to the United States of America. In 1809 Thomas Campbell, who was a Presbyterian minister, issued a statement known as the "Declaration and Address" which really initiated the movement known as Churches of Christ, or in America, the Disciples of Christ. It arose out of a passion for truth and unity. The original intention was to work within existing denominations, but the revolutionary implications of the movement and the human element in all parties forced a separate existence about 1830. The growth of Churches of Christ in Britain was largely an emergence through Scotch Baptist churches and coincided with the development across the Atlantic with which there was early contact. It was through British migrants that Churches of Christ were planted in New Zealand and Australia towards the middle of the nineteenth century.

      One of the master motives of Churches of Christ--the passion out of which the movement sprang--is the union of all Christians. The movement would lose much of its justification for continuing as a separate body but for its plea and programme for Christian union. The restoration of the faith and practice of the apostolic church as approved in the New Testament gives a concrete programme for Christian union. There is an authoritative and abiding pattern for the church in the New Testament. There we find a unity of spirit, a unity of faith, a unity

in obedience or practice, a manifest or visibly functioning unity. The outside world saw it and knew it as a unity. This real and visible unity must be restored. Because of its plea for the ancient order of things this movement has been quite commonly known as the Restoration Movement.

      Pioneers of the Restoration Movement were moved to action by the spectacle of a divided church and sectarian bitterness. We are thankful that for the most part, the latter has disappeared. But in spite of a better spirit and measures of co-operation, the church is still divided in its organisation and witness. Inefficiency, waste, ineffectiveness are inevitable consequences. In a divided world it is a tragedy that those who hold the one message of unity are themselves divided. Well may the world say with scorn: "Physician, heal thyself." Christian unity is one of our crucial questions.

      Originality makes a pioneer. It is by reason of it that he suffers an unintentional, but inevitable isolation. Pioneers of the Restoration Movement showed an originality in breaking with traditional ideas and practices, and they called for originality in the

attitude and approach of all who would be guided by them. In the introduction to "The Declaration and Address," Thomas Campbell asserted that each person, guided by the Word of God, should think and act for himself in religious matters. Alexander Campbell said: "I have endeavoured to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me; and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views of yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority or systems whatsoever."

      If we maintain the outlook of the pioneers we shall not be bound, only guided, by what they thought, said and did. Our attitude shall be that of seekers after truth, rather than that of possessors of all the truth. Should we ever lose originality and become intolerant of its exercise among us, we shall have lost a possession of the pioneers and a vital principle in pioneering for Christian unity. Originality calls for a readiness to re-think, re-state, and re-orientate in the light of changing conditions and situations. We are seekers after truth. If some honest seeker after truth finds difficulties, raises questions, and suggests new ideas, and for that reason becomes suspect and in some way ostracised because he has departed from old paths, it is probably we who have departed from

the genius of our movement rather than he. Would the Restoration Movement have had birth, if the pioneers had not found difficulties, raised questions, and presented new ideas? Originality is essential to progress, and tolerance of originality is essential to unity.

      As Churches of Christ have maintained the vision that made them a people they have always emphasised three pillars of unity--catholicity, authority and liberty. These will be discussed in the following pages.

A Catholic Church.

      The word "catholic" leads many people to think immediately of the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholics do arrogate to themselves the name, "Catholics." This use carries the assumption that Romanists hold the true faith and all non-Romanists are heretics. Many of the latter quite unintentionally pay a compliment to the Romanists by calling them "Catholics." "Catholic" simply means, universal, general, embracing the whole body of Christians. It seems that originally there were isolated and independent congregations or churches, but gradually there developed the idea of a universal Church which found particular expression in different places at different times. With the growth of heretical sects the idea of the universal or catholic Church was stimulated. Over against the heretical sects the catholic Church was regarded as possessing apostolicity, authority, purity, universality and unity. From all this we grasp the conception of a catholic as one who holds and practises the universal faith in Christ, and the catholic Church as the one which holds and practises this same universal faith.

      Thomas Campbell began by declaring that the Church is essentially one--united and universal. A divided Church is a self-contradiction. If we are to restore and maintain the essential unity of the Church we must get back to the universals. Divisions in the Church are due to peculiarities said Campbell. Discard these, get back beyond them and the universalities remain, and union will be established. This was the beginning of

A Catholic Plea.

      Speaking of the brethren of all denominations Campbell began the plea for unity with a catholic spirit. He deplored sectarian bitterness and believed in the essential brotherhood of all Christians. It is because we are all Christians that we should unite. If we are not all Christians, why plead for unity? There is only one faith in which we can unite, the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. The plea then was for

a catholic creed, and the emphasis was on faith in the person of Christ and obedience to Him as Lord. We can unite in personal faith and obedience. Faith in theories about Christ, and theological explanations of Christ as tests of fellowship divide.

      Some absolute authority must be universally accepted to achieve union. The only authority which can be universally accepted is that of Christ. But Christ's mind and will are known to us, objectively, only in the New Testament. Let us, therefore, accept this catholic authority.

      Desiring to honour Christ and embrace all who belong to Him in a united body it is necessary to adopt a catholic name for His Church. Each congregation of Christians is a manifestation or expression of the universal Church of Christ. Then let each one he known as a church of Christ, and all together, simply as churches of Christ, making up the Church of Christ. It should be clearly understood that those associated churches known as Churches of Christ claim only to be a part of the Church of Christ.

      All Christians accept the validity of obedience to Christ in the observance of the Lord's Supper and baptism. All accept the validity of the Lord's Supper as a central act of worship, and the validity of the immersion of believers into Christ as Saviour and Lord. Here we are on catholic ground. When any departure is made, we pass to particulars and divide. Let us unite, therefore, on a catholic observance of the ordinances.

      The Protestants did not deny the priesthood, but extended it again to all believers. We plead for the logical and practical recognition of the catholic priesthood.

      Here then is a plea for a catholic spirit, a catholic creed, a catholic authority, a catholic name, catholic ordinances, and a catholic priesthood. It ought to commend itself to the catholic (ecumenical) movement of the modern world, and to all who are really interested in the unity of the broken body of Christ. The contribution of such a catholic plea is very real and great, and one which makes great demands upon us who present it and those to whom we present it.

      Unity in the business world depends upon all who participate being bound by the same measure of quantities and values. All must adhere to the pound weight, the foot rule, and the pound note. If the grocer weighed butter by one weight, and the housewife weighed it by another, there would he no unity. In all fields some common ground of appeal, some final authority beyond individuals and groups, is essential to unity. The question of authority is crucial for Christian unity.

The Only Authority.

      The final authority for religious people is God. His mind and will provide the absolute for us. But God is only known to us by revelation. His character, mind, and will must be disclosed to us by His initiative. It is in order, therefore, for us to say that authority is found in revelation or the disclosure of religious and moral truth by the initiative of God. This raises the question of how God is revealed to us. How are religious and moral truths disclosed to us? The answer is that revelation come, to us in what God has done and said. In creation and history God's deeds are manifest. Creativeness, power, wisdom, prodigal bounty and goodness are evident ill our wonderful universe. Nature and history give evidence of a stubborn morality. The universe and history are ultimately moral. Experience in time and space--in history and Nature--teaches us that we live in a moral framework which proves the deeds and lives of individuals and nations. In the long run only that which is good and true survives. If men and nations keep on doing what history and the universe do not want done the, result is disastrous for the men and nations. They break their world and themselves to pieces on the ultimate framework of a moral order. This is God's world in which He is revealed in the moral experience of man. In noble religious and moral ideas such as are found in the living religions of the world and in ethical systems and insights He is recognised. God has not left Himself without witness. All this may be described as a general revelation or simply a manifestation of God.

      We believe that a special revelation has been given in the history of Israel, and through what God said through the inspired prophets of Israel. The Old Testament may be described as a record of an inspired history and of inspired men. Herein, however, we have a record of only a partial revelation. The complete and perfect revelation is found in what God did and said in and through Christ. God is revealed in Christ, and Christ is revealed to us authoritatively only in the record of the New Testament. The revelation of Christ through the New Testament is authoritative because it is objective, that is, beyond the inner, individual and personal experience and ideas or opinions of lily one person. My experience of Christ may he authoritative for me, but it cannot be authoritative for others. It is subjective, inner, individual and personal. Our individual experience of Christ, apart from direct revelation, call only begin with the knowledge of Christ as He is disclosed to us by the record of the New Testament. That record belongs to all. The revelation that is preserved in that record is something which comes to us and descends upon us from without. We must begin with this universal and objective authority.

      As a people we have rightly stressed the authority of God as revealed in Christ, and have consequently exalted the New Testament, rather than the Old Testament, because the former brings to us the final revelation and authority. We do not undervalue or discard or reject the Old Testament. Its values remain, but as we are true to our plea we avoid carrying the Old Testament over into the Christian Church in the sense of accepting its conceptions and standards as authoritative for us. We would not forget the words of the Master: "Ye have heard it was said by them of old time . . . But I say unto you."

      The authority of the New Testament, or the Bible as a whole, is not tied up by us with any particular theory of inspiration. "The Bible is inspired as it is inspired, not as we may think it should be." There is a sense in which inspiration rests on authority rather than authority resting on inspiration. Something in it reaches out and meets our need; and something in us reaches out and meets what comes to us through the Bible. The truth convinces our minds, captures our hearts and subdues our wills.

      Our sense of values is satisfied and the "ought" of authority is laid upon us. From this we know that

we have come face to face with truth and are convinced of its inspiration.

      In the last analysis the authority of the New Testament is based on the fact that it brings to us an infallible authority on God and duty. The Word became flesh in Christ, Who has given us a clear and satisfying picture of what God is like and what we ought to be like. Before Him we are silent and surrendered. We would guard against bibliolatry by keeping our emphasis upon the Person who is brought to us by the Book.

Other Views of Authority.

      Some have stressed the Church as the authority. The Roman Catholics for instance, while not denying authority to the Scriptures, claim that they are not the only channel of revelation. The Church is also a channel, and, indeed, is necessary to the completion of revelation, in so much so that the voice of the Church is final. The difficulty of this position is that it leaves us with a subjective and humanistic authority only. That is, an authority which is derived from within man, growing out of his opinions, ideas and judgment alone.

      It is argued by those who take this position that the Church existed before the New Testament, and, in fact, produced the New Testament. It is true that the Church existed before any of the books of the New Testament were written, and it was not until some time later that the individual books were recognised as authoritative and selected by the Church is an authoritative whole in what is known as the New Testament Canon. But it must he admitted that the Church was produced by the revelation. This revelation was, and still is, the authority. The revelation, as the authority before and behind the Church, was first preserved orally; then it was written in the writings which the Church eventually accepted as the New Testament. We see then that the real authority existed before the Church, and when it became preserved in the writings of the New Testament it merely took on a new form. This authority was before, behind, and beyond the Church.

      Another view of authority is found in the emphasis upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Here we have the same difficulty of subjectivism--an authority derived from within man. We do not deny the guiding of God's Spirit in the Church, we constantly

pray for it, but a distinction must be made between revelation and illumination. Revelation was given in and through Christ. Complete religious and moral truth disclosed by Him. Illumination is the growing understanding of that truth. The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church should provide illumination, but not revelation. We need and enjoy the guidance of the Holy Spirit in giving us a deeper understanding of revelation. This understanding is progressive and expanding. Thus it is that new light may ever break from the Word.

The Point of Authority.

      Revelation can only be given to us if we have the capacity to receive it. Revelation is the presentation of truth, meaning, and values. There can be no reception of these things without a mind to receive and a valuing sense to appreciate and value. A revelation could not be given to an animal. What is objectively given is subjectively received. Now the point of authority is where the objective and the subjective meet. This means that authority can only operate according to our understanding of the given revelation. Christ is the given absolute. But different people understand Him--His mind and will--in different ways. Each one can only, and must, obey Him according to his understanding. The same is true in regard to the New Testament as the authority. It is no guarantee of unity, therefore, simply to present and accept one absolute authority. That is, in itself, the holding up of Christ, or the New Testament will not guarantee unity. All such can guarantee us is a unity of obedience, not a unity in obedience. We may be united in general obedience, but our obediences according to varying understanding will divide us unless we can find some other unifying principle. This is clearly illustrated in relation to the Christian attitude to war. Two young men take Christ as their authority. One understands it as his Christian duty to engage in a particular war; the other understands it as his Christian duty to refuse to have any part in war. Each is acting according to his understanding of Christ's mind and will. Both obey Christ as Lord. They experience a unity of obedience, but they are divided in their obedience. Fellowship and unity need not be broken, however, provided the principle of liberty is applied in relation to differences in understanding and obedience.

Unity Upon Facts.

      The Restoration Movement has sought to meet this problem of different understanding by stressing the acceptance of facts without interpretations or theories.

      Following the lead of Alexander Campbell a fact is understood as something done or said. Where there is an act clearly described by Scripture or a clear statement given in the Scripture we have a fact. For instance, "Christ died" is a clear description of an event or act. Here is something done. This is a fact. "For our sins" is a clear statement of the Scripture interpreting what was done. Here is something said. This also is a fact. In this clear testimony we have the fact of the atonement. On the basis of such facts we may be united. If we go beyond clear, Scriptural testimony we find ourselves divided by human interpretations and theories. .

A Universal Understanding.

      Another attempt to meet this problem is put forward by some members of Churches of Christ. It is suggested that where there are different understandings of Christ or the Scriptures, while accepting the ultimate authority of the Scriptures, let us seek an immediate authority in the common understanding of the Scriptures as we find such throughout the Christian age and world. This is not a popular mind, but the mind of consecrated, qualified scholarship. Let the authoritative position of a united body be determined by this universal understanding or common mind.

      Some have objected that this principle of the common mind interpretation was not presented by the pioneers. But supposing it was not; what of the principle of originality? If the principle of a common mind interpretation as an immediate authority is a sound and workable one, if it meets a problem, why should we not exercise our originality and present and use it to-day?

      The question may he raised as to what is the difference between this position and that of accepting the Church as the authority. The vital difference is that while those who take the Church as the authority regard it as absolute the authority of the common mind or universal understanding is only an immediate, or working, or relative authority, it is not an absolute. It is always a relative tied to an absolute.

      The appeal to the common mind provides a real contribution to the problem of division. Of course this common mind is not necessarily a unanimous mind. It is always open to the challenge of the individual who takes his stand on his understanding of the absolute, and the individual may he right. But at any moment [lie common mind will determine the authoritative position of the Church. By the acceptance of that universal understanding, unity is gained and maintained.

      The fact of a minority, however, shows that unity can only be maintained by adding the principle of liberty to authority. Authority without liberty can only mean unity within a totalitarian framework such as we see in the Roman Catholic Church or the totalitarian slate, or division into hard-shelled, mutually exclusive factions.

      Authority, standing alone, is no guarantee of unity. That is no theoretical dogma; it is supported by the stubborn facts of experience. Many people who walk in different ways, and organise themselves in different bodies, all own the authority of Christ or the New Testament. A unity based on authority alone can only be a totalitarianism in which there is no liberty of thought, expression, and life. Totalitarianism simply will not work. There are always rebellions and secessions. Initiative cannot be restrained and crushed. Authoritarian unity may provide a fine logical ideal, but it does not meet the life situation. Authoritarians will always blame the libertarians for causing divisions. Their plea is that if only the libertarians would abide by the fixed rule, unity would be preserved. The point that is overlooked by the authoritarians is the simple fact that their scheme does not work. Human initiative and individuality will not be forced into a rigid framework. On the other hand, liberty, without authority, means licence and anarchy. Keeping these facts in mind, the Restoration Movement seeks a synthesis of authority and liberty.

Liberty Beyond the Common Mind.

      It has been pointed out already that the common mind which serves as an immediate, relative authority, is not necessarily a unanimous mind. There may

often be a dissenting mind. On some matters there will probably always be a dissenting minority. The sincerity of this minority must be recognised. While the position taken by this minority cannot be the, ruling position of the Church, we can only preserve unity by recognising minorities as belonging to the Christian family.

Liberty of Creed.

      Liberty of creed does not mean that we may believe anything or nothing. A creed is a statement of basic belief. Nothing less will be accepted and nothing more demanded as a test of fellowship in the Church. Of course the Church will teach and believe many more things than are embraced in its creed, but i! will Dot make these other things tests of fellowship.

      The Restoration Movement has always laid stress on a personal divine, Scriptural and non-theological creed. Christ, the Person, is the Christian creed. It is not what we believe, but in whom we believe. Our creed is a living personal Lord and Saviour. It may be described as an experimental creed. The Christian experience is not an experience of an incomparable Man, an ideal Teacher, who lived some nineteen hundred years ago; it is the experience of One in whom God stepped into human life and history at that time, and through whom He steps into our lives to-day. In seeking a statement of this creed we turn to the Scriptures and take Peter's confession which Christ said was not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is the confession of faith that we demand of all who would enter the Church and take the name, "Christian." We accept nothing less and demand nothing more. No theological interpretations are required. On the basis of this minimum faith we call for a maximum life. The faith-test and the life-test are essentially bound together.

      Between the basic faith and the maximum life there is room for liberty of interpretation and theological explanations of Christ. History has provided varying theories and controversies concerning the person of Christ. Men have sought to explain and dogmatise on the metaphysical relationship between the Father and Son, and between the human and the divine in Christ. But through all the controversies one thing has stood firmly as the abiding Christian faith, namely, the Lordship of Christ in thought and experience. We think of Him as Lord and experience

      Him as Lord in our obedience; beyond that there is liberty. A similar thing is true concerning the Saviourhood of Christ. During the Christian era there has been a whole crop of theories as to how Christ saves. Theories of the atonement have been multiple. But through all the theories one thing has stood firmly as the abiding Christian faith, namely, the Saviourhood of Christ in thought and experience.

      The essential thing is that we experience salvation, forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption or new life., in Christ. Beyond that experience of faith there is liberty. Our creed is a Person, not theories about Him. The Christian life is an experience rather than a system of dogmatic theories. Christian experience unites us. How joyfully we sing the many hymns which have come from the pens of writers of different ages and denominations. They all breathe one experience.

Liberty and Theories.

      If there be liberty in theories relating to Christ, there must also he liberty regarding the many theories that attend the Christian faith. The facts of inspiration, the second advent of Christ, immortality, the kingdom of God, belong to the Christian faith, but theories concerning these facts vary. In this field of theories there must be liberty. There are different opinions concerning the nature, authorship, and composition and dates of books of the Bible. Such opinions can never he regarded as essentials of the Christian faith or tests of fellowship. Liberty must obtain. There is a similar divergence of views on social, economic, political, and international matters. Each Christian has a right to his view, none should de-Christianise another for an opposite view, and fellowship should be preserved by the operation of liberty and love. If one is suspect because of his particular theory or view, or his lack of a particular theory or view, there is failure to exercise the principle of liberty and a denial of the position of Churches of Christ.

      In seeking to indicate the area of freedom Churches of Christ have used the expression: "In things essential, unity; in things non-essential, liberty; in all things, charity." This is helpful but it always leaves open the question as to what is essential and what is non-essential. Is there to be liberty on this point? A difference on this issue could easily cause division. Consequently, Churches of Christ have not rested in this expression alone. Other watchwords have been

used in the effort to indicate the area of liberty. As we have seen, a distinction has been drawn between facts and theories. Theories arise where there is no clear testimony of Scripture concerning something done or said. Some would equate facts and essentials, and theories and non-essentials. This does not solve the problem, however, because a distinction is made between facts. Some may be regarded as essential and some not. We need to call to our aid the distinction made between faith and opinion. Under this distinction we may see that there are facts which are essentials of the faith. Opinions cover matters concerning which there are no clearly established facts, and facts concerning the significance of which there is difference. But what are the facts which are essential to the faith? They are the facts to be received by faith unto salvation. These facts come to us under commandments, such as: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"; "Repent and be baptised." There are other facts, not to be received unto salvation, which come to us under commandments and which, therefore, must be regarded as essential to the faith. For example, "This do in remembrance of me." This leads to the conclusion that the facts essential to the faith are those that come to us through clear commandments of the Word of God.

Liberty of Expression and Progress.

      The principle of liberty demands liberty of expression. No unity is safe that is built on suppression. If the presentation of different or new views is so disturbing to us as to threaten division. It is because we have not grasped the principle of liberty which we boast, and because we have not practised the principle. Liberty of expression, if freely practised, would save us from threatening shocks. The practice of our plea would develop liberty and unity.

      We have placed a restriction on liberty of expression in holding to the view that in pulpit and press, only those things should be expressed which are most surely believed. One has a perfect liberty in matters of theories and opinions, but these must be private and kept to one's self. There is no question concerning the practical strength of such a position as this; but if only "accepted" things can he presented, what hope is there of progress? New truth may be lost by the denial of expression for originality. It is also true that there are private opinions which one need not, and would not want to preach or publicise. But what

if one develops an idea which is to him a burning conviction of truth? Should he not be free to express it without fear or prejudice? Was not this the very thing that the pioneers did. They presented original ideas over against what was most surely believed or accepted. If it be argued that they were justified because they advanced from tradition to truth, the argument carries the assumption that we now possess all the truth rather than that we are still seekers after truth. Such liberty of expression would undoubtedly mean the presentation of some error. In spite of our plea for the preaching only of universals, originality and individuality have asserted themselves among us, and theories both true and false no doubt, have been preached and publicised among us. It seems that we can only rely on truth to preserve itself in a field where originality serves progress, and liberty serves unity.

      Liberty is a principle easily abused. All expressions of it should be subject to discretion, expression of positive faith and creative purpose, and no opinions or theories should be imposed on others. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Like the immediate, relative authority of the common mind, liberty must ever be tied to the absolute authority of Christ.