• Foreword
• The Witness of the Churches of Christ
• The Church
• The Ministry
• The Sacraments

      THE title of this brochure is not of my choosing, but was that prescribed for the annual conference of the Melbourne Theological Colleges Union. Representatives from the Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist churches, and of Churches of Christ were asked to present for discussion a paper setting forth the teaching of the respective communions on the Church, the Ministry and the Sacraments. I was glad to represent Churches of Christ, and at the request of the Board of the Federal College of the Bible gladly submit the paper for publication.

      THE origin of the Churches of Christ is found in the emergence and unity of several independent streams towards the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century.

      In the United States of America three streams emerged from the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches. All were moved by a desire to be free of human creeds and authority, to make the Bible their only guide, to adopt the simplicity of primitive Christianity, and to exercise the right of private judgment. These independent streams united as the Christian Connection in 1806.

      Two other streams which later united in America flowed, one from the Scotch Baptists and one from the Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The latter was the master stream, and the pioneer of it was Thomas Campbell, a minister of the Anti-burgher, Seceder branch of the then divided Presbyterian Church. He was a man of a generous, tolerant spirit, who sought the union of the Seceder branches of the Presbyterian Church.

      Ill health led to his transfer to America, where in the course of his ministry he gave offence to the Presbyterian Synod by his generosity in inviting the isolated members of the different branches of the Presbyterian Church to partake together of the Communion. Following a motion of censure, he later withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Synod, and with others formed an Association for the

promotion of Christian unity. In 1809 a statement known as "The Declaration and. Address" was printed. This may be regarded as the charter of the movement. The same year Thomas Campbell's son, Alexander, arrived in America and heartily embraced the principles laid down in Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address." Against their original desire a church was formed at Brush Run in 1811, and from then on leadership passed into the able hands of Alexander Campbell. Until about 1832 these restorationists or reformers, as they were known, were allied with the Baptists, but then separation took place. About the same time a union was effected with that other united stream, the Christian Connection.

      The movement in Britain emanated about the same time from a branch of the Scotch Baptists (Macleanists), and later made contact with the American movement. In Australia the movement was established by colonists from England and Scotland, but the later influence came from American preachers, writings, and Australian preachers trained in American colleges.

      We cannot boast great numbers. Our world membership is approximately 2,000,000 the majority of which is in America, where there are 1,600,000 members, while there are 16,000 in Great Britain and 38,000 in Australia

      Our movement came into being in a protest against sectarian bitterness and strife, and in order to plead and work for the unity of all Christians. It arose out of what may well be called a passion for Christian unity. Mr. H. E. Tickle, a British representative, has said: "The advocacy of the union of all believers is largely the justification for the separate existence of the Churches of Christ." As a means to the desired end of unity, we have pleaded for the restoration of the faith and practice of the apostolic church as presented in the pages of the New Testament.

      CHURCHES of Christ have ever regarded the church as a divine and not merely a human institution. It is the "body of Christ," an extension of the incarnation; not merely a moral society, but a visible organisation divinely instituted and existing as the authoritative agent of God.

      Emphasis is laid upon the church as a fellowship based upon loyalty to Christ. It is a fellowship of those who are united in one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, under one God and Father of all.

      "The true Christian church or house of God is composed of all those in every place that do publicly acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah and the only Saviour of men; and building themselves upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, associate under the constitution which he himself has granted and authorised in the New Testament and are: walking in his ordinances and commandments--and of none else" ("Christian System," P. 55).

      Dr. F. D. Kershner, an American leader, writes: "The church represents the fellowship of the faithful, as Martin Luther was wont to express it, and this fellowship ought to be 'a unitary something' in spite of all differences of opinion or practice within the larger circle of its influence. It is not simply an invisible or ideal community of saints, although this may be one of the connotations which the term includes. It is not a hard and fast ecclesiastic organisation, modelled after a political state, and possessing all the dangers and weaknesses of such an entity. It is rather a free fellowship uniting its adherents in the bonds of Christian brotherhood in their loyalty to a common cause and a common Lord." ("Witness of the Churches of the Congregational Order.")

      There may be an invisible church, but for us that is not primarily "the church." We have traditionally

emphasised the reality of a visible organisation on earth as against any doctrine of an invisible church which suggests that "the true church need not be visible, and the visible church need not be true." It is a free, visible, organised fellowship.

      Back in 1809 Thomas Campbell stated in his "Declaration and Address": "The church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one. Although the church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another; yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them."

      The church is essentially one. Division is sin. "Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men?" (I Cor. 3:3). It is this recognition that has made us sensitive to the prayer of our Lord: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21).

      We endorse heartily and rejoice in this statement from the "Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine" appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York," issued in 1938:

      "Although in the primary sense of the term 'church' there can only be one church, nevertheless we read in the New Testament of ekklesiai or 'churches.' As thus used in the plural, the term denoted local groups, or 'assemblies' of Christians, each of which in its own locality, or in the place where it assembles, is held to be the church; it is a local manifestation (distinguishable, qua local, from others) of the one indivisible church or ekklesia of God. (There were, of course, in the New Testament period no competing or rival 'denominations' within Christendom.)" (Page 103.)

      Christ's emphasis upon the worth of the individual and the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of all believers stand as the pillars of democracy in the church and provide the spiritual roots of all true democracy. We

are convinced that the democratic principle prevailed in the apostolic church.

      In accordance with the idea of the church as a free organisation, and as an expression of the principle of democracy, Churches of Christ have adopted congregational independence as their pattern of church government. We believe that the church of apostolic times was not a hierarchy, but a democracy of believers; that it was not patterned after the Hebrew temple and its ritual, but rather after the synagogue, with its simple services and democratic organisation. The local congregation is the legislating and governing unit.

      No central organisation exercises any jurisdiction over the local life and activities of a congregation or church. That does not mean that there is no co-operation for the benefit of the independent units and for the promotion of united effort in the interests of the Kingdom. Regular conferences are held, and conference committees are appointed to care for co-operative effort. Such conferences and committees may act in an advisory capacity, and make recommendations to the local congregations, but cannot legislate for any congregation as such. The conference may only legislate on such matters as are voluntarily agreed upon as co-operative undertakings, e.g., missions, buildings, authorisation of preachers.

      Co-operation is a principle, but it is the free or voluntary association of independent units. One of our leaders and historians, W. E. Garrison, writes: "The local congregation is regarded as deriving the validity of its churchliness from its own nature--the faith and loyalty of its members, their compliance with the New Testament requirements for discipleship, and its own conformity to whatever pattern of a church's structure might be considered normative. A congregation does not derive its churchly quality from any historical continuity with other congregations, or from a grant of authority by any ecclesiastical judicatory or from the possession of a ministry accredited without. Any group of Christians can constitute themselves a congregation which thereby becomes a true church, an authentic part of the one church, and has all the rights, powers and privileges that any church can have, including the right to create such a ministry as it may need--but always in accordance with the New Testament pattern." (Witness of the Churches of the Congregational Order.")

      The bishops and elders of the New Testament are regarded by us as one and the same, and a plurality of elders or bishops is accepted as the New Testament precedent. Thus the oversight of the local church is entrusted to a plurality of elders or bishops. In view of the historical development of the title "bishop," such has been avoided in favour of the title, "elder." Accepting the democratic principle as a rule, elders and deacons are elected to once by the congregation.

      As a body of people we are known predominantly in America as "The Disciples of Christ," while in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand we are known as Churches of Christ. Unfortunately we are commonly referred to by some of our own people and others as "The Church of Christ." This is a mistaken and unfortunate designation. We do not claim to be the Church of Christ. We are simply churches of Christ.

      We love to emphasise the truth that the church is Christ's. He is its Founder and 'Head; it is his body and bride; and we are unfavourable to any name that would hide this great fact. We desire a name that is comprehensive or catholic and non-sectarian; a name that obscures all that is human and external, and puts forward the divine and central character of the church. In short, we want a name that can be worn by all; a name that is indeed prized by all, for each church, whatever name it outwardly assumes, rejoices in its heritage as a church of Christ.

      We plead for this as the explicit name for each and all. Protesting against sectarianism and putting forward the scriptural ideal as the basis of a united church, we have chosen to style each congregation a church of Christ. When we voluntarily associate for purposes of co-operative work, and when we describe ourselves as a movement for the satisfaction of Government authorities we are simply styled, "Churches of Christ."

      We recognise that while this name is scriptural and ideally undenominational, in practice it has come to designate a particular body as a denomination of Christians in distinction from other bodies or denominations of Christians. We hope, however, that our ideal will be appreciated.

      The question of authority is a basic one in the life of the church. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism differ as to the seat of authority. Roman Catholics claim that the authority of Christ is found in the church. On the other hand, Protestants claim that the authority of Christ is found in the New Testament alone. "The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," cried Chillingworth as a Protestant representative.

      The danger of making the church the authority is subjectivism, and the value of making the Scriptures the authority is that objectivity is preserved, because they present us with something given. But when we make the Scriptures alone the authority, the way is opened for the licence of private interpretation and perverse individualism. History has shown us how Protestantism made Christianity a "book religion" and split itself into many sects.

      How, then, can we avoid the subjectivity of church authority and preserve the objectivity of Scriptural authority, but at the same time avoid the perils of individualism?

      The Scriptures give us an absolute or objective authority, but when we accept them as the sole authority there remains the problem of interpretation. What is needed is an immediate authority. In the search for this authority Churches of Christ have sought to avoid setting the New Testament over against the church or the church over against the New Testament. It is the New Testament as set down in the midst of a living body that provides the authority. Authority is found in a combination of the church and the Scriptures.

      A. Campbell wrote: "It is not the will of Jesus Christ . . . that the church should be governed by a written document alone." ("Christian System," page 173.)

      Professor Lowber, a leader of the movement in America, wrote these words in 1888: "There is a tendency among Protestants to disregard the authority of the church and to look upon it simply as a moral society. The 'Disciples' ('Churches of Christ') believe the church divine, and that it is as important to obey the bride as the bridegroom." ("Struggles and Triumphs of the Truth.")

      Hence Principal Wm. Robinson says that the early leaders of our movement "saw quite clearly that to overstress the authority of the church and to neglect the authority of the New Testament was a movement in the direction of subjectivity. . . . But they saw with equal clearness that to overstress the authority of the New Testament as against that of the church was to make of Christianity a 'book religion,' and to reduce the New Testament to the level of a rule-book, giving reign to private interpretations of a literalistic and legalistic kind." ("Ministry and the Sacraments," page 256.)

      Among Churches of Christ, then, stress is laid upon an authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. This, we believe, is found in the interpretation of the common mind of the church--a catholic interpretation, or the interpretation of the "considered, qualified scholarship of the church catholic" throughout the ages.

      An absolute authority is found in the Scriptures alone, but an immediate authority is found in the authoritative or catholic interpretation of the church. This gives us an authority that transcends the traditions of men, and which alone can combat perverse individualism and anarchy without subjecting us to the untenable position of blind obedience to an infallible Pope and church, or slavish obedience to a legal code that dropped down out of the heavens.

      The New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, rediscovered by the Reformation, has been heartily embraced by Churches of Christ. We stand firmly by the New Testament assertion that there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Searching the Scriptures for the officers of the church in apostolic times, we find no mention of a priest, and we accept the testimony of history that no Christian servant was called a priest for the first two hundred years of Christianity.

      Upon this foundation we have stood firmly against any idea of a sacerdotal or a clerical class of any description regarded as possessing a different status from other members of the church. But this has not led to a denial of

      In the New Testament we find the principle of specialisation and the existence of different officers who are classified according to function.

      At Jerusalem the twelve advised the multitude of disciples to look out seven men to administer benevolence while they said of themselves "We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4).

      We read of elders being appointed in every church and city. Paul lists evangelists, pastors and teachers among those who were given for the work of the ministry.

      Hence, while protesting against professionalism, Churches of Christ recognise the divine authority of a regular and a constant ministry.

      Three major orders are recognised as belonging to the permanent ministry of the church--bishops or presbyters or elders; deacons; and evangelists or missioners.

      Traditionally, evangelists have been regarded as qualified, itinerant preachers who do not settle with one church or congregation, but move about from place to place as servants of the whole Brotherhood, helping an existent church or seeking to establish another. This practice is not so prevalent to-day, and the title "evangelist" has been used also to describe a preacher who is in a settled pastorate, and who, like Timothy of old, does the work of an evangelist.

      Convinced that in the apostolic church a plurality of elders prevailed, Churches of Christ have traditionally emphasised the eldership as charged with the spiritual oversight of churches or congregations. Elders have not generally been specially trained, but emphasis upon democracy, the priesthood of all believers, the responsibility of independent thought, study, and service has encouraged elders and others to qualify themselves as able Bible students, preachers and leaders. In practice deacons often do the work of elders and elders do the work of deacons.

      Along with the elders is the specially trained preacher who gives his whole time to "the ministry of the Word" and lives by the gospel.

      He needs nothing more than the call of a particular church or congregation to constitute him a regular minister. He is engaged in a settled pastorate where he serves as a pastor, a teacher and an evangelist. By virtue of his office he is regarded as an elder. His position makes him most akin to the paid elder suggested by I Timothy 5:17 ("Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.")

      This paid minister of the Word differs from the other elders and the deacons only in function. They are divided into classes not by a horizontal line with a superior class above and inferior classes below, but by vertical lines which leave them all on the same level of honour and responsibility, merely divided according to their specialised tasks.

      Concerning ordination, A. Campbell wrote in "The Christian System" (pp. 60 and 64), "The standing and immutable ministry of the Christian community is composed of bishops, deacons and evangelists. . . . All officers are to be formally and solemnly set apart by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery or eldership of the church. The whole community chooses--the seniors ordain. This is the apostolic tradition. . . . It is immutable."

      In the beginning ordination was rejected by the fierce democracy of the churches as tending to create an ecclesiasticism and a clerical caste, but in time it became the almost universal practice in America. It has not been practised in Australia in the past but the ordination of graduates of our Federal Bible College has been recently adopted and is likely to remain a feature in recognition of candidates for the ministry. Generally, ordination would be regarded as having scriptural authority, but that the practice has not been previously adopted in Australia is probably due to some leaders having taken Calvin's attitude that though ordination has scriptural sanction, its practice is not expedient owing to the abuse of the rite in the development of priestcraft and ecclesiasticism.

      In any case ordination would be regarded merely as a formal recognition of the function of the minister of the Word. It serves as a blessing on and a confirmation of one who has been called and really ordained by the Spirit of God. It is in no sense recognised as a necessary initiation or as making one's call valid.

      Standing by the priesthood of all believers, Churches of Christ have repudiated any distinction between clergy and laity, as indicating a distinction of status.

      In keeping with this refusal to recognise any rigid distinction between clergy and laity, no clerical dress has been adopted and the clerical title, "reverend," has not been accepted.

      With a desire to use scriptural names, the titles, "elder," "pastor," "evangelist" have been adopted for and by ministers of the Word.

      Such descriptions as "preacher" and "minister" are common, although some objections have been raised to the latter as being unscriptural and suggestive of a clerical distinction.

      Churches of Christ have generally preferred to speak of the ordinances of the church rather than the sacraments. Accepting the definition of an ordinance as "the mode in which the grace of God acts on human nature," in practice we have recognised the Lord's Supper and baptism as the two great institutions of the church. These we accept as having the authority of Christ and the historic church.

      Churches of Christ have always placed great stress on the Lord's Supper as the supreme act of Christian worship. When Christians gather to worship, they meet

together for the purpose of breaking bread. We believe that we have an apostolic precedent for this motive and practice (cf. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:17-34; I Cor. 16:2). Hence the Lord's Supper is the chief service every Sunday. This practice is not based merely upon the alleged practice of the first Christian churches, but it is based upon the conviction that worship is not complete without this act of communion which bears a constant witness to the personal character of the Christian experience. The Supper speaks of the personal revelation of God, the personal response of man and the personal relationship in reconciliation.

      Emphasis is laid upon the Supper as an act prescribed by Christ. We may come to the communion with diverse beliefs and experiences, but it is not what we believe, but what we do. "Do this," he said, not "believe this." On this basis Romanist and Protestant could unite.

      While the act of observance is regarded as a memorial, it is not merely accepted as that. It is also a spiritual communion of the body and blood of the Lord to those who worthily partake. It is not only a communion with Christ, a spiritual feast, but an act of fellowship in which the church as a royal priesthood offers worship.

      As a fellowship or an act of the whole church, the Lord's Supper is not administered to others by one selected person. Any member of the church who is qualified morally, spiritually and mentally, may, and does, preside over the act of worship and fellowship.

      Churches of Christ have contended earnestly for the fundamental revelation that Christianity is essentially moral and personal. What is sub-personal is sub-Christian. On this ground, supported by the authority of the New Testament, we have contended for believer's baptism. Discipleship is based on faith and obedience. The church is a community of saints--those who have been transformed by the grace of God, through their personal acceptance of Jesus Christ.

      Baptism is an expression of their faith and personal acceptance. It is a conscious, deliberate, personal act by which they are formally initiated into the body of Christ.

      Because they find no explicit evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament, and because they find explicit evidence of baptism as the expression of faith and the accompaniment of conversion in the New Testament, and because infant baptism appears definitely to have been introduced into the church after the apostolic age, and that in its history it has been associated with sub-personal and semi-magical views of the working of God's grace, Churches of Christ have contended earnestly for believer's baptism as the only authoritative act.

      Baptism is essentially an act of obedience to him who is accepted as Lord. This emphasis, together with the emphasis on the moral and personal character of Christianity, has excluded all thoughts of magic and displaced any doctrine o f baptismal regeneration. We are baptised into him by whose Spirit we are regenerated.

      On the basis of the literal meaning of the root word used in the New Testament, and the figurative use of the word, and the New Testament descriptions of the act, and on the basis of the symbolism of baptism as presented in the New Testament, Churches of Christ have preached and practised immersion as the only valid mode of baptism. This mode, we contend, bears witness to the great facts of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and alone appropriately symbolises the great experience of conversion. We die to self and are buried by surrender and obedience in him, and rise with him to walk in newness of life (cf. Romans 6, and "World Conference on Faith and Order," p. 48 note).

      That we are baptised into Christ unto the remission of sins is the traditional Churches of Christ doctrine concerning the design of baptism. We have held this while repudiating any doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Remission of sins is essentially through Christ; it is in him that we are saved. But by baptism we formally put on Christ, we are baptised into him.

      Baptism is formally connected with the essentials to salvation. Birth from above and the inner change are the essentials. These come by faith and are expressed in repentance. Baptism is the formal symbol of this new birth, and an act of obedience expressing faith and repentance. As such it is a means of grace connected with salvation.

      In the New Testament we find faith, repentance, conversion and baptism connected, and therefore, what God has joined we do not put asunder. For us baptism has no value apart from faith, repentance and conversion. But we believe that faith should naturally express itself in baptism as an act of obedience to him who is accepted as Lord.

      We do not speak of baptism as essential to salvation, for that would be to ascribe intrinsic value to the rite and to throw us into the magic of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is extrinsically connected with salvation, deriving its value as an expression of the moral and personal nature of faith and repentance. Neither do we presume to say that those who are not baptised are not saved, for that would be to limit the power of God and to contradict Christian charity and experience.

      But we do speak positively as we are commissioned to speak that those who accept Christ in faith, repent of their sins and are baptised into him shall be saved. We dare not and do not preach less.

      The validity of the immersion of believers as an initiatory rite into the church and as a means of grace is accepted by almost all.

      The consensus of qualified scholarship of the church throughout the ages confirms this interpretation of the New Testament practice and doctrine. There is a catholic or common mind thus far. When any go beyond or depart from this catholic basis we divide. As a people we plead for the authority of this catholic interpretation or common mind as the basis of unity, not only on the question of baptism, but on all questions that divide the church. And on matters where there is no established common mind or catholic interpretation, then we put forward the other pillar of unity--liberty.

      Unity will be reached by the happy synthesis of the thesis and antithesis--authority and liberty.