This section will focus on the general scope of the plea, but particularly on unity. Subtle shifts of emphasis, principally in the editorials of A.W. Stephenson, will also be featured.

1. Reiteration
2. Unity
3. Shifts of Emphasis

1. REITERATION

      1. The article is not written as a criticism of other Christians. If the Christians, now scattered throughout the various religious bodies, are ever to fulfil the will of Jesus Christ and be united, as prayed for by him (see John 17:21-23), we must learn to understand each other better. Unkindly criticisms only widen the breach that separates us. None of us cares to be misunderstood, hence none of us should be content to misunderstand others. "Try to understand your neighbor, and you will be understood," is a truth worth considering.

      2. We trust that the readers of this will be as "noble" as were those folk mentioned in Acts 17:11. "They were more noble than those (Jews) of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good," is the apostle's injunction.

      3. The purpose of this article is to state as simply and as clearly as possible the reasons why the writer is associated with the churches known simply as "Churches of Christ:"

      4. At the outset, then, it is needful that we should be clear as to the meaning of the term "church," and also the term "churches."

      In the New Testament that word "church" has two distinct uses.

      (a) It is used to include the whole of Christ's people who belong to this one great universal church. In Matt. 16:18 Jesus said, "I will build my church." Clearly this refers not to any one congregation of Christians, but it embraces all Christians. The fact is made more sure by the next clause of verse 18, where he says, "And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." That he could not have meant any one congregation by the term church is evident when we remember that local churches or congregations have been overthrown--"prevailed against." Paul makes it perfectly clear that the word church is used at times to embrace all Christians, for in one place he says, "The church which is his body" (Eph. 1:22, 23), also Col. 1:18. And of this "church" or "body" Paul says, "There is one body" (Eph. 4:4). Hence it is clear that in this case the word means, not a local assembly, but a universal church or "body" which includes all Christians.

      (b) But the word "church" is also used to mean a local assembly of Christians. This is clear from many references. In 1 Cor. 1:2, Paul addresses "The church of God which is at Corinth," and in Philemon (verse 2) he speaks of "The church in this house." In such references, it is the local congregation he has

in mind. In Rom. 16:16 he says, "The churches of Christ salute you," and in 1 Cor. 16:1 he speaks of "The churches of Galatia," and in 1 Cor. 16:19, "The churches of Asia." Here we have the plural term "churches"--various congregations of Christians. Now when we speak of "Churches of Christ" in this article, we refer to those congregations of Christians who refuse to be known to the world by any other name than "Churches of Christ," or "Churches of God." To us, as to Paul, each congregation is "a church of Christ," and several congregations are "churches of Christ."

      Now, why am I associated with these congregations in preference to some other?

      I. Because they have no guide but the Bible.

      The Bible to them is "God's Word," and is "able to make us wise unto salvation:" The "wisdom" of man must not be allowed to set aside the will of God, revealed through the Scriptures. "Back to the Bible," "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak," and "The Bible only our authority," are mottoes loved by "Churches of Christ," because they express confidence in the authority of the Scriptures in all matters pertaining to the church and individual Christians. Their appeal, on all questions of church doctrine, organisation and policy, is to the Scriptures--"What saith the Scriptures?"

      II. Because they, where the Scriptures do not clearly reveal the will of God, stand for liberty of conscience.

      On all questions that pertain to our salvation the Scriptures are clear. God has seen to it that these truths are revealed fully lest a wayfarer might miss the way. But many matters are difficult to grasp clearly. Much controversy has been waged about them by students of the Scriptures. Such matters are not essential. On all such matters there must be liberty. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity," is another motto of "Churches of Christ," and it expresses a beautiful broad spirit of liberty for all upon matters not clearly revealed.

      III. Because they honor Christ by wearing his name for the church.

      Each congregation is simply "a church of Christ." That other congregations of Christians choose to call themselves by names other than Christ's is no fault of ours. Nor must we be accused of casting reflection upon them because we refuse to wear human names. It lies with them to show reasons why they prefer their respective names in preference to the name of Christ. "Churches of Christ" wear the name for four reasons at least.

      (1) Because by doing this they recognise that the "church is Christ's. He said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). He purchased her with his own precious blood. "He loved the church, and gave himself for her." She is his by right.

      (2) Because by wearing Christ's name we are scriptural. The Scriptures call the churches "Churches of Christ" (plural), or "Church of God" (singular).--Rom. 16:16; and 1 Cor. 1:2.

      (3) Because the name "Church of Christ" or "Church of God" is the only name that is worthy of the institution which he came to establish, and which is said to be "The fulness of Christ who filleth all" (Eph. 1:23).

      (4) Because we realise that the name "Church of Christ" or "Church of God" is the only name under which it will ever be possible to unite God's people throughout the world. We may revere the names of great men or great countries, but there is no name under heaven big enough to unite God's people except his name.

      IV. Because they refuse to wear any name but Christ's name for the individual follower of Christ. There are at least three reasons why we refuse to wear any other name but "Christians" or "Disciples of Christ."

      (a) We desire to honor Christ. All Christians are his. Whose name should they wear but the name of their Lord and Saviour? Honor all great and good men, but these did not "redeem" us with "their precious blood." Christ alone did that.

      (b) Because we want to be scriptural. The (Acts 11:26), Peter shows that the "disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" were persecuted "for the name of Christ" (1 Peter 4:14), and he says, "If any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed" (1 Peter 4.16). But James 2:7 makes it definite that the followers of Christ wore his name. "Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which you are called?" (Jas. 2:7). Whose name was "that worthy name" except Christ's? Whose name did those godless men blaspheme except Christ's? Hence it is very clear that the early disciples were called "Christians," and "Churches of Christ" wanting to be scriptural use that name for the individual.

      (c) Because the name "Christian" is the only name under which all God's people will ever unite. Other names for the people of God divide us; this unites us.

      And so for those three reasons members of the "Churches of Christ" are known simply as "Christians."

      V. Because they honor Christ as "Head of the Church:"

      "He is Head of the body, the church" (Col. 1:18). The various members, weak and strong, go to make up the church or the body. None of these has a right to be master or authority in the church. Christ alone has that position. Popery had no recognition in the apostolic days. Apostles regarded themselves as "servants of Christ."

      The idea that Peter became Pope has no foundation in fact. He regarded himself in the latter days as but "a fellow elder in the church of God" (1 Peter 5:3). "Churches of Christ" seek to get away from all semblance of popery, back to the scriptural order--Christ the Head of the church, and all Christians {brethren in Christ" (Matt. 23.8-10).

      VI. Because they honor Christ by refusing to adopt any human-made creeds. No creed but Christ.

      Men of all ages have made creeds and sought to bind them upon others as tests of faith. Such creeds have divided God's people. The New Testament teachers asked men to believe "that Jesus was the Christ." Upon the confession of this simple creed they were accepted as subjects for Christian baptism, and received into the church (see Acts 8:37). This creed centred in Christ, and Churches of Christ make no other test than: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?" Who accepts Jesus as Christ has a right to be allowed to come into his church in his appointed way (see Acts 2:41).

      VII. Because they honor Christ by practicing the baptism authorised by him and his apostles--the immersion of penitent believers.

      1. The baptism authorised by Christ is shown by Paul to have been "a burial"--immersion (see Rom. 6:4; and Col. 2:12). There is not one Scripture which authorises sprinkling. Authorities of all religious bodies agree that the apostolic baptism was immersion. To honor Christ, "Churches of Christ" desire not to be wise above what is written, and so practice as baptism that which has Scriptural authority, and that only.

      2. The baptism authorised by Christ was for those who "believed" (see Acts 8:2; 8:37) and "repented" (Acts 2:37). Infant baptism found no place in the practice of the apostles. Therefore "Churches of Christ" baptise none but those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance toward God.

      VIII. Because they honor Christ's command--to meet and "break bread" in remembrance of his death--every first day of the week.

      In Luke 22:19 we read that Jesus "took bread and gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples, saying, This is my body . . . This do in remembrance of me." Acts 20:7, 8, shows that Paul taught the converts from heathenism to meet weekly to remember their Lord. There is ample proof that this was the practice of the early church. "Churches of Christ" desire to honor Christ in the same way, and so each Lord's day (Sunday) the Lord's table is spread and Christians meet to "break bread." This is the central purpose of the meeting.

      IX. Because they teach the priesthood of all Christians.

      There is no trace of ecclesiastical distinctions in the teachings of the New Testament. 1 Peter 2:9 says all Christians are "priests unto God." Rev. 1:6 gives the same great truth, "All Christians a kingdom and priests unto God." The distinctions of modern times are contrary to this new Testament doctrine. The "Priesthood of believers" is a precious truth and needs to be reaffirmed. "Churches of Christ" therefore avoid all distinctions in the Church of God.

      X. Because they are content to tell enquiring sinners just what the apostles told men of their day who were seeking salvation.

      Acts 2:37-41 gives the record of the question, "What must we do? and Peter's clear and logical answer, "Repent (they already believed) and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins;" or Acts 8:12, "When they believed Philip's preaching concerning the kingdom of God, they were baptised, both men and women;" or Acts 10:44-48; or Acts 16:30-33. From the Book of Acts we learn that the apostles required Faith, Repentance and Baptism (in accordance with Christ's last command--Matt. 28:19) of all who came into the early church. See Acts 2:37-41; 8:12; 8:36-38; 10:4448; 16:14, 15; 16:30-33; 18:8; 19:3-5.

      XI. Because they plead for the unity of all God's people.

      Jesus taught that his people should form "one flock" with "one Shepherd." "Other sheep (Gentiles) have I which are not of this fold (Jews). Them also must I bring . . . and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd." Jesus Christ prayed for unity (John 17:21-23), "that all may be one," such unity as would be visible to the world at large. Paul says again and again, There is "one body" (see Eph. 4:4), and he condemned all divisions amongst Christians (see 1 Cor. 1:10-13). He said Christians at Corinth were carnal because they allowed divisions and strife (1 Cor. 3:3, 4). The divisions amongst God's people confuse those outside for whom Christ died, and "Churches of Christ" hear the fervent prayer of Jesus, and plead "that we all may be one that the world may believe" that Jesus in the Christ, the Son of God.

      XII. Because they plead for the restoration of the New Testament church as the right and only basis of lasting Christian unity.

      We rejoice to think that various religious bodies now recognise the sinfulness of sectarianism. All attempts by them to secure "union" indicate that our efforts for above a hundred years have not been in

vain. The "Churches of Christ" once stood alone in their plea for unity. Now they stand firm for this other truth--that real unity can only come by a return to the basis of the New Testament church.

      The church as given to the world by Jesus Christ--through his apostles--was fitted to meet the requirements of all men anti of all ages. We cannot improve upon it. All attempts to reunite God's people on any other basis will fail. And so with hide we plead for "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

      For those twelve reasons at least we are proud to be associated with "Churches of Christ," and pray for the day when all God's people shall preach the whole counsel of God in love--keeping "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

2. UNITY

      This section contains the manuscript of an ABC address by E.L. Williams and a positive review of the history and contribution of Churches of Christ by C. Irving Benson of the Wesley Church Melbourne.

E. L. Williams, A.C., 1949, p. 409.

      What is the place of churches of Christ in the modern crusade for Christian unity?

      E. L. Williams, M.A., principal of the College of the Bible, gave the following answer in a national broadcast on August 21, one of a series on "The Re-United Church" arranged by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is printed here with permission of the ABC.

      Towards the close of the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth, independent thinkers from among Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist denominations became agitated concerning the divided state of the church. 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. Outstanding among these pioneers were Thomas and Alexander 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 U.S.A., the disciples of Christ. It arose out of a passion for Christian unity. The original intention was to work within existing denominations, but the revolutionary implications of the movement and the human elements in all parties resulted in a separate existence by about 1830.

      The advocacy of the union of all believers is largely the justification for the separate existence of churches of Christ. The pioneers of the movement were distinctive in pleading for Christian unity. As a means to unity churches of Christ have pleaded for the restoration of the faith and practice of the apostolic church as presented in the New Testament. Expedient developments and diversities may take place so long as there is no conflict with clear facts, principles, precepts, practices and precedents of the first century or apostolic church. While churches of Christ are no longer alone in the plea for Christian unity they do claim a distinct contribution in their plea for unity by way of restoration on the basis of New Testament authority.

      The church is essentially one. It is the body of Christ, and there can no more be two or more bodies than two or more Christs. There really cannot be churches except in the sense in which the New Testament recognises each congregation as a church. These congregations or churches make up the universal church. That there should be divisions in this universal church is a universal built on universals, doctrines, principles and practices can it be true and united. In witnessing for Christian unity churches of Christ plead for a return to the universals of the apostolic church and the simplicities of the New Testament pattern. Basic among these universals are a universal need creed and a universal authority.

      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 be no unity. In all fields some common ground of appeal, some final authority beyond individuals and groups; is essential in unity. So the question of authority is crucial for Christian unity.

      The Christian church began with and rests upon the fact of Christ. This matchless Person confessed as the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the creed of the church. Churches of Christ plead that this confession alone should be the essential test of faith and fellowship in the church. Not theories about him, or the Bible, or the church, or any other fact of the Christian system should be tests of faith and fellowship, but simply faith in a Person as a divine Saviour and Lord. We see this as a universal

creed. Less than this the church cannot accept; beyond this we cannot go without running into particulars, peculiarities and division.

      This universal creed gives us a universal authority. Christ as the perfect revelation of God discloses the divine way. But his mind and will are known to us only and authoritatively in the writings of the New Testament. Through the record of his words and deeds, and the words and deeds of his immediate followers speaking and acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have God's revelation in Christ. In the light of and under the guidance of the universal facts, principles, precepts, practices and precedents presented in the New Testament the church should find unity in a universal faith, a universal doctrine of the church, a universal doctrine and practice of the ordinances, a universal doctrine of the ministry and a universal name. It will be readily grasped that by universal we mean that which is or can be accepted by all.

      If there be different interpretations on some points, as there are, let the church seek the common mind, or universal interpretation, or majority opinion of qualified, consecrated scholarship and accept its finding as an immediate authority on debated issues.

      Where there is no clear fact, principle, precept, practice or precedent, and no common mind, let there be liberty. Unity can only result from a sound combination of authority and liberty. On the one hand, authority saves from license; on the other, liberty saves from dictatorship, exclusiveness and intolerance.

      The formation of the World Council of Churches of Christ at Amsterdam last year marked a significant milestone in the march of modern Christian unity movement which is known by the rather forbidding title of the ecumenical movement. "Ecumenical" simply means, "embracing the inhabited earth." The whole Christian community--to be universal. Its purpose is to promote Christian unity and world-wide evangelism. At the Edinburgh council in 1937, the Archbishop of Canterbury said: "We meet to consider the grounds of our disunion and to find the way to union . . . Our aim must be to combine loyalty to the truth which we have received, with readiness to learn also the truth which others have received but we ourselves have either missed or failed to appreciate in full."

      The approach of the ecumenical movement is to begin with the things which all Christians hold in common and to promote fellowship and understanding from which it passes to a frank recognition and discussion of differences. Each participating body is recognised as having values to contribute, and one is asked to surrender its particular witness. The aim is to preserve and amalgamate in some way all the historic values which have been prized and preserved by each Christian communion. It is not the function of the World Council to legislate for participating denominations, but it will "offer counsel and provide opportunities of united action in matters of common interest."

      The creedal basis of membership in the World Council is the simple acknowledgment of Christ as God and Saviour, and the movement is one in "asserting the uniqueness and supremacy of the revelation given in Christ, in whose name alone salvation is offered to the world." This testimony is recognised as given in the Bible, "which thus affords the primary norm for the church's teaching, worship and life."

      As a people whose true passion and purpose is to promote Christian unity, churches of Christ rejoice at the apparent movement of the Spirit in history in the development and purpose and achievements of the ecumenical movement. The holy discontent with division and the turning of the face towards unity are heartening.

      We have already drawn attention to the emphasis of the ecumenical movement on universals. Its ideal is to be universal in embracing all; it conceives of a universal or world church; its approach is first through the things which all Christian churches hold in common; its basis of membership is a simple universal creed; and it accepts as a primary norm or authority the universal Christian book--the Bible. This emphasis upon universals impresses us as a sound basis for unity. As a people we would be sceptical of any advance beyond the authority of the New Testament. As we see it, the acceptance of the authority of the post-apostolic development and tradition of the church goes beyond the universals of the New Testament and lands us in particulars, peculiarities, the sectional and divisive. If the watchword of the ecumenical movement be "preservation" we would emphasise "restoration" as a watchword, and place the restoration of truth before the preservation of tradition.

      It seems imperative to us that we should begin where the ecumenical movement begins--with fellowship in our agreements and in co-operation in practical issues and tasks. As courtship is necessary to successful marriage so this comradeship is essential in the approach to unity. Friendship and comradeship must precede a necessary, frank discussion of differences. Differences must not be glossed over, but they cannot be faced except in an atmosphere of mutual trust and recognition. The recognition that all have values is imperative, as is the right of all to maintain and make their distinctive contribution without apology or compromise.

      We believe that every lover of unity in Christ ought to be behind and in this movement. There are knotty problems to be solved. They will not be solved easily, but they will never be solved unless we get together in the spirit of brotherliness and humbly surrender ourselves and our differences to Christ as our Sovereign Lord.

C. Irving Benson, A.C., 1938, p. 628.

      (Last week we referred appreciatively to the article under the above heading from the pen of Mr. C. Irving Benson, of Wesley Church, Melbourne, which appeared in the "Herald" of September 24. We have pleasure in reprinting it for the benefit of our readers.--Ed.).

      The Churches of Christ have been celebrating the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Alexander Campbell. It is a story worth telling and a spiritual adventure worth understanding--the tale of how the Campbells passionately longed for the union of all Christian people. They believed that the only common denominator of all Christian people is faith in Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the practice of Christianity as revealed in the New Testament.

      Let no one imagine that there is any touch of arrogance by this group of Christians appropriating the name the "Churches of Christ" Principal A.R. Main has well said, "We claim to be Christians only, but repudiate with horror the Pharisaic thought that we who are associated with congregations wearing no sectarian name are the only Christians."

      The body of Christians who rejoice in this name (numbering more than a million and a half), do not imply that other churches are not churches of Christ. Members of the churches of Christ--or Disciples as they are called in America--would be glad if all thatches would abandon local and party names and style themselves Churches of Christ without qualification. Bishop C.P. Anderson, of America, told the Convention of the Diocese of Chicago "God never made Protestant Episcopalians--nor Presbyterians, nor Congregationalists, nor any of sectarian name. He made Christians, and they chose to call themselves by less lovely names."

Passion for Union

      One of the master motives of the 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 witness and unwavering advocacy of the belief that Christian union can only be achieved when the New Testament is taken seriously as the standard of the church and the attempt earnestly made to recapture the spirit of the New Testament and to restore its essential forms.

      The fellowship began in the early years of the nineteenth century. Though it had powerful leaders, it did not come into being as the creation of a single person--rather was it the fusion of a number of converging streams of thought and life.

      In America there were two main streams. One arose in Kentucky. Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister, and some of his friends united with Baptists and Methodists in a great revival in 1801. They were virtually put out of the Lexington Presbytery for this offence. Forming a new and more liberal Presbytery, they were led to deeper study of the New Testament church, and finally dissolved their Presbytery and called upon men and women to take the name "Christian" only, and the New Testament as the only sure guide in religious matters. The other stream arose in Pennsylvania. It also came from a Presbyterian source.

Sectarian Evils

      Thomas Campbell, trained in Glasgow University, became a minister of the Seceder Presbyterian church in the north of Ireland. In 1807 he migrated to America and was given a charge in the Presbytery of Chartiers in Western Pennsylvania. He deplored the evils of sectarian divisions and bent his energies to join the scattered groups of Presbyterians in common worship and work which would in some measure unite rival factions. But the churches of that day were not ready to welcome efforts for union and he was censured by his presbytery for his attempts, and although upon appeal the synod refused to endorse the finding of the presbytery, he felt compelled to leave the church of his fathers.

      Soon after this drastic step he drew up a document known as the "Declaration and Address," which is the foundation deed of the Churches of Christ. In it he pleaded with all Christian people to abandon all the doctrines and practices which were unscriptural and divisive and promote the union of the Christian church and thus realise Christ's great prayer for the oneness of his followers: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are, 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 halt sent me."

      In 1824 the leaders of the two movements met and though Stone and Campbell differed in emphasis, they had sufficient common ground upon which to join forces.

The Coming of Alexander

      Thomas Campbell formed the Christian Association at Washington--a society on the model of the early Methodist societies, and not a church in any sense. He was joined by his son Alexander, then in his twenty-first year. Alexander, born near Ballymena on the shore of Lough Neagh, in Ireland, on Sept. 12, 1788, had been trained for the ministry in Ireland and Glasgow. By the time he landed in America he had been fired with a zeal to recover New Testament Christianity, and he expressed his complete agreement with the principles set forth by his father in the "Declaration and Address," and determined to give his life to the proclamation of them.

      Alexander Campbell was a man of strong intellectual power, a master of men, and the outstanding leader of the movement. Disciples have sometimes been dubbed by their enemies as Campbellites just as those who are opposed to the Oxford Group call its members Buchmanites. The Campbells had no intention of founding a church. They sought to persuade all churches to come together in the faith, worship and polity of the New Testament as they saw it. After attempts to link themselves with a liberal Presbyterian Synod, and then a Baptist Association, they were forced, in spite of themselves, into forming a church. The first congregation was formed at Brush Run in 1811.

Back to Simplicity

      Surveying the problem of Christian unity, these sincere men begged their fellow Christians to eliminate the human additions to the primitive and simple gospel. This seemed to them the only way to a united church. Their objective was the restoration of the early Christian Society as the means of bringing all the scattered fragments into one church. They held tenaciously to the great evangelical beliefs of the New Testament and sought to be guided by the

      New Testament in all their procedure. Thus they became opposed to infant baptism and insisted upon baptism of believers by immersion.

      Alexander Campbell, the sesquicentenary of whose birth has just been celebrated, was militant in spreading these principles. He gave the strength of his mind and the passion of his heart to two great purposes--"the union, peace and purity, and harmonious co-operation of Christians guided by an understanding enlightened by the Holy Scriptures" and the conversion of men and women to God. Both the Campbells wrought valiantly, but as the father had turned fifty when the movement began, it was the son upon whom the responsibility of leadership largely fell.

What is Essential?

      Many of the ideals for which these pioneers fought, and in which they were vigorously opposed, are now happily accepted in nearly all churches. Some of the credit for the happier state of the churches may perhaps be attributed to the Campbells and their followers who in days when sectarian bitterness was far more acute than it is nowadays, urged its sinfulness; when "textual theology" was almost universally prevalent, urged the necessity of a historical study of the books of the Bible; when creeds and dogmatic confessions were more rigidly guarded than they are to-day, urged that personal loyalty to Jesus Christ was more essential than assent to a doctrinal formula.

      On the March day in 1866, when Alexander Campbell lay dying he regained consciousness for a few minutes and asked his wife in a quiet voice, "What day is it, my dear?"

      "It is the Lord's day," she answered.

      "Yes," he said, "it is the Lord's day, and the Sun of Righteousness ariseth with healing in his wings."

3. SHIFTS OF EMPHASIS

A.C., 1935, pp. 769-770.

      Differences of opinion are expressed concerning almost any subject under the sun. In spite of this fact, however, it is generally recognised that there are fundamental unifying principles which demand universal acceptance. And furthermore, even these principles themselves also lie within an all-embracing unity. While private judgment may move freely and without hindrance in the realm of opinion, this cannot be so in respect to universal principles, for they ought to be recognised and accepted. Concerning these the individual viewpoint must yield to the considered and matured judgment of the world of scholarship. An individual may make some contribution to the world of knowledge and so modify it. But for a person to set up his own unsupported opinion in opposition to the considered judgment of recognised scholarship is, undoubtedly, extreme folly. So while the sphere of opinion may be extensive, it is also limited, and therefore the individual ought to be on his guard lest he trespass beyond its limits and pass into the realm of principle. In matters of opinion there may be diversity, but concerning universals there ought to be unity; if not, there will be confusion and turmoil.

      If this rule is to be applied effectively to the church, then our conception of the church must not be restricted, but rather all-inclusive. There should be a consideration of the claims of all the Christian organisations, including the Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, as well as the many Protestant bodies. That each of these organisations has in some degree divested from the course of the true catholic (universal) church, the church of the lord Jesus Christ, will be readily admitted. But how may we determine what ought to be the accepted beliefs and practices of such a catholic church?

The Ground of Authority

      The ultimate unity in which the whole church rests, and which is universally recognised, is the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ. This is the "Rock" upon which the church is built; and those denying this authority cannot justly claim fellowship within the church.

      Now our knowledge of Christ is gained through the scriptures, and in particular from the New Testament. Just as our knowledge of the microscopic world is gained primarily through the microscope, so in like figure our knowledge of Christ comes by means of the Bible. Our knowledge of the microscopic world depends upon what may be considered the "authority" of the microscope, because without the microscope we cannot see the microscopic kingdom. So, indeed, is our knowledge of the will and authority of Christ interrelated with the authority of the scriptures. How is it possible for a person to gain any knowledge of Christ apart from the scriptures? To say that men may gain a knowledge of Christ from the life of others is begging the question, because originally those folk secured their knowledge of the Lord through the Bible. It may be further suggested that our knowledge of Christ may come independently of the New Testament, through the traditions of the church. But, for the early catholic church, the authoritative tradition was nothing more or less than the scriptures themselves. Nothing more authoritative than the holy scriptures were handed down from the beginning. And these things were written, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

      The authority of Christ and of the scriptures must be accepted as universal principles of the catholic church; they are essentials and must not be considered as belonging to the realm of private opinion.

Method of Interpretation

      It is easy to lay down the rule that "We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent," and consider then that our problem of Christian unity is solved. Many religious bodies make the same or similar claim, and yet there is no unity of belief and practice among such folk, because there seem to be as many different interpretations of scripture as there are religious organisations. Surely, then, it is obvious that there is a need for laying down a rule of interpretation which will define clearly the realm of private opinion and the ground of universal belief.

      The Roman Catholic church laid down the rule that only the Roman Catholic church has the right to interpret the scriptures; the individual as such must not interfere in any way whatsoever. On the other hand Protestantism, developing during an age of extreme individualism, claims that any individual has the privilege of determining for himself just what the Bible teaches. Chiefly because it has followed such a principle, Protestantism has become divided and sub-divided into many warring sects.

      In the arbitrariness of Roman Catholicism, and the policy of laissez faire in Protestantism, there are quite obviously two extremes. Very often truth lies in a synthesis of contrary propositions. It may be that a satisfactory rule could be evolved, if something of Roman Catholic authority and Protestant individualism were blended into a common rule. A law of interpretation is needed, which will have a note of authority and yet be consistent with the claims of a private person. The early pioneers of the restoration movement followed such a rule, when they sought to determine the essential beliefs and practices of the true church.

      It may be expressed as follows--Whatever interpretation of scripture is supported and approved of by considered, qualified, catholic scholarship must be acknowledged as authoritative. An individual may, by research and study, make a contribution to Christian scholarship, but for one to ignore utterly and disregard such an authority would indicate boorish ignorance. A little reflection will reveal that under this rule there is no guarantee that we shall reach a final and absolute interpretation, but only an authoritative one. It still allows for development of thought and so does not stifle the spirit of enquiry. When such a rule is applied faithfully the results reached will not be the opinions of an individual nor of a sect, but rather the authoritative principles of the catholic church--the church of Christ.

This Rule and the Restoration Movement

      The charge has been laid against the restoration movement that its scriptural interpretations have no greater claim for recognition, as a basis of Christian unity, than certain Protestant denominations. If the scriptural interpretations supported by the movement are merely "ours," then such a criticism would be well supported. But is it so? It should not be, if we have been true to our fundamental claims. Let us consider an example in which this rule was applied. Alexander Campbell was faced with the question of the true mode of Christian baptism. Having been brought up within the Presbyterian church, he was familiar with sprinkling. Of course, in America he knew and was associated with the Baptists, and so was familiar with their beliefs, but he considered them to be illiterate and ignorant fanatics on this question. In conformity with the guiding principle of the movement, Campbell determined to ascertain the considered view of qualified authorities, and so he set out to read all the works he could secure both in English and French on the subject. What did he find? That this catholic scholarship declared that the only scriptural interpretation concerning the mode of baptism practiced by the New Testament church was immersion. Now such an interpretation is not just Alexander Campbell's private view nor merely "ours," but nothing less than the true catholic position, as supported by universal scholarship, and ought to be therefore practised by the Church of Christ.

      In order that we may not fall into the errors of sectarianism, nor lapse into the weaknesses of "anythingarianism," let us hold to the principle of liberty in matters of opinion, but let us have unity in essentials, such universals or essentials being determined by the scriptures as interpreted by qualified Christian scholarship over the widest field. Guided by such a rule the restoration movement must make an ever increasing appeal to lovers of the truth and lovers of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A.C., 1942, p. 2.

A Universal Authority

      Essential to any programme of unity is a universal authority, a standard acceptable to and accepted by all.

      The early Christians, in addition to the Old Testament, made their appeal to the oral word of Christ and the apostles. This oral, authoritative tradition came to be written, and was finally canonised as the New Testament. If it be argued that the church existed and was the authority before the New Testament, we should point out that from the beginning the church appealed beyond itself; first to the Old Testament, then to Christ, and finally to the apostles of Christ. When the teaching of Christ and his interpreters was written and later canonised, there was no change in the authority itself. There was no new authority, but merely the old authority in a new form. The New Testament, as such, truly came after the church, but its essential and authoritative content existed before the church.

      If the church ever did enjoy any final authority; on the day that it accepted the New Testament canon, it surrendered such and became subject to its constituted authority, just as contracting parties surrender their liberty and authority immediately they sign the contract by which they agree to be bound and guided.

      We believe, then, that the only universally acceptable authority is the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, and that a united church can rise only on such as the universal authority.

A Universal Interpretation

      But the New Testament requires interpretation, and the right of private judgment is a gift of the Reformation which we cannot ignore and dare not deny. How, then, can our universal authority remain

intact? We are driven to discover some immediate authority; that is, an authoritative interpretation of the ultimate authority. Such we find in a universal interpretation, or the interpretation of what has been described as "the competent, qualified, spiritual scholarship of the church throughout the ages." Then, on whatever interpretation we have a universal mind, that shall be an essential in which unity is required, while on whatever interpretation there is no universal mind there shall be liberty.

      Applying this principle to our lord's institution of baptism and the breaking of bread, a united church can be built around the doctrine and practice of these only as they are universally interpreted on the explicit and positive record of the New Testament. The way to unity on this principle can be explicitly exemplified in the matter of baptism. All who practice this ordinance admit the explicit authority of the New Testament for the immersion of believers and most accept it as an initiatory rite and that, in some sense, it is a means of grace. It is when we go beyond the universal interpretation that we divide.

A. W. Stephenson, A.C., 1942, p. 253.

      J. S. Mill maintained that, in the early days of a new religious movement when there is a strong conviction of the vitality of its fundamental principle gripping the life and outlook of the originator and his direct disciples, rapid progress is seen.

      The upward struggle of the new movement will continue until one of two things occurs. Either the movement will achieve its mission or else cease to progress and then become one of the recognised sects struggling to hold ground. In such a sect, teachings are inherited not adapted. Then there is a lack of conviction. While certain beliefs are held, they are not practised. That is why a movement which once made rapid advances can cease to progress. Instead of working for new converts, it begins to court popularity.

      The Restoration Movement, which began to develop about 130 years ago, set out to urge Christians everywhere to put aside divisions and to unite upon the basis provided in the life and teaching of the New Testament church. Great zeal was demonstrated for many years and remarkable progress has been recorded. The great goal set has not been reached, however, and much must be accomplished before it is. It cannot be justly said that the Restoration Movement has fulfilled its mission. There is much to be won before it ought to stop functioning within the Christian communities.

      At the present time we must guard against the possibility of our ceasing to be a movement and of becoming a sect. Many have inherited the ideals of the movement. They have not studied them nor made them convictions. Is that a reason why we have not made such rapid progress in recent days? Unless there are strong convictions there will be few converts.

      It is the duty of members to study again and again the principles of the Restoration Movement. Some never take the trouble to find out what ideals govern the movement with which they are associated. Others think they know, but never try to ascertain whether their ideas are correct. They think they know what the Restoration Movement stands for, but are not aware that their notions differ a great deal from the fundamental principles set out at the beginning.

      We face the dangers of sectarianism. If we become a self-satisfied sect we shall encumber the world; but so long as we remain a movement and make progress, we shall add life to the Christian church.

A. W. Stephenson, A.C., 1943, p. 25.

      The individual who realises that he is a sinner, then accepts Christ as Lord and obeys the requirements of the Master, enters the church. Naturally such an individual is ignorant of the meaning of the facts of the Bible, and must be instructed.

      Throughout the long history of the church interpretations and doctrinal theories of the great scriptural facts have been developed. These are of great importance, and each new member must be made aware of them.

      To gain a direct knowledge of true doctrine demands the study of all the relevant facts and the making of accurate inferences from these. It is within the right of any Christian to gather the facts, make his own deductions and formulate his doctrinal views. But a man is arrogant if he thinks he does not need to compare his investigations with the findings of scholars, to check his deductions and to ascertain whether they be correct or not. By comparing one's efforts with the results of the investigations of the

qualified, spiritually-minded scholars, we are respecting the common mind of the church. In the consensus of this opinion of Christian scholarship, we have an authoritative interpretation of scriptural facts. When doctrinal teaching respects the truths of the common mind of the church, it is only common sense to accept it as authoritative. Just as it would be foolish for anyone interested in science to ignore the findings of the great leaders of science, so it would be foolish for us to set aside the findings of the consecrated scholarship of the universal church.

      While a man's salvation depends upon the great facts recorded in the Bible, and only these must be considered as "terms of communion," nevertheless the teaching of doctrine must have a part in the programme of the church. When such doctrinal teaching sets forth the common mind of the qualified, spiritual scholarship of the universal church, it will, because it is authoritative, strengthen the bond of unity within the church.

A. W. Stephenson, A.C., 1943, p. 553.

      We do not believe that the mere use of a correct "nomenclature" will solve the Christian unity problem, but the use of scriptural names for the facts and functions bound up with the life of the church will help to make manifest the unity in Christ that Christians throughout the world in various communions really do enjoy; the correct use of a scriptural vocabulary will emphasise the degree of unity existing within the fellowship of the church and help to banish misunderstanding.

[NOF 534-544]