Within Churches of Christ debate over the question of unity, during the period 1950-1970, resulted in considerable controversy. This segment, which traces the debate in outline, will concentrate in

turn on early opposition to and defence of the World Council of Churches, comment on the first Billy Graham Crusade, debate over the question of baptism, further comment on the WCC on the rival ICCC, the response of Churches of Christ to the formation of the Uniting Church, comment on the editorial policy of the Australian Christian, publication in New South Wales of American Standard Lesson Materials, reaction to the second series of Graham Crusades, commitment to further "conversations" with the Uniting Church, documentation of a Consultation on Union called together to explore divisions within Churches of Christ and the publication of positive affirmations resulting from a second Consultation which was set up to discover what Churches of Christ could say together. The person around whose supposed opinions much of the controversy raged was E.L. Williams, who was appointed Principal of the College of the Bible in 1946. The two major publications written by Williams on the ethos of Churches of Christ were A Biblical Approach to Unity (Melbourne, Austral, 1957) and Churches of Christ: An Interpretation (Melbourne, Vital, 1980).

1. WCC
2. Billy Graham
3. Baptism
4. WCC and ICCC
5. The Uniting Church
6. The Australian Christian
7. Standard Lessons
8. Billy Graham Again
9. "In Conversation" with the Uniting Church
10. Consultation on Union

1. WCC

A.C., 1950, p. 83.

      May I express through your columns the anxiety which some feel because of the association which Australian churches of Christ now have with the World Council of Churches? The perfect sincerity of those who favor this association is not questioned. But I believe I give expression to the feelings of many in claiming that our affiliation with this organisation is regrettable, first, because of the nature of the plea of churches of Christ, then because of the nature of the W.C.C.

      There seems to have been a growing misapprehension, among even some of our preaching brethren, that the Restoration Movement stands for church union. But such was never the plea which called churches of Christ into being. We have stood for the unity of Christians in a restored New Testament church, not the union of denominations on a man-made and, in the case of the W.C.C., totally inadequate platform.

      Even more concern, however, is caused by the nature of the organisation into which we have been led by the decision of Federal Conference in 1946. The W.C.C. presents only one doctrinal statement as a basis; it claims to be a fellowship of churches which accept Jesus "as God and Saviour." Pleasing as that may seem, its force is completely vitiated by the explanatory statements attached to it; they are: (1) That the foundation is not a touchstone, whereby the faith of churches or persons can be judged. (2) That the council does not concern itself with the manner in which the churches will interpret the foundation. (3) That it is left to the responsibility of every church to decide whether it will co-operate on this basis.

      These rob the one doctrinal statement of any value it may have had to men of evangelical belief.

      Moreover, through the W.C.C. we are now linked in fellowship with Eastern Orthodox churches, whose belief and practice is entirely opposed to scripture and to the gospel we profess to preach. Doctrines we repudiate, as worship of the virgin, prayers for the dead and to the saints, etc., are held by these churches. Part of the offerings requested for "rehabilitation" of Europe will go to building colleges to train "orthodox" priests to teach these abhorrent doctrines.

      Then the attitude towards Rome is completely unsatisfactory. That church is hailed as a "sister Christian communion," and would the pope but agree, can have full affiliation with the W.C.C. Indeed, so lax have some of our own brethren become that, in an address published and distributed by decision of the Victorian Conference, 1949, Rome is twice called a "Christian" body. This every Protestant should repudiate. That the Lord may have some lambs even in that lions' den may be allowed, but the "mother of harlots" is not a Christian church.

      Even worse is the fact that the W.C.C. is now largely under the leadership of "modernists" whose repudiation of Christian fundamentals is complete, e. g., Bishop Oxnam, who actually adopted a reference to the God of the O.T. as "a dirty bully," has been made a president of the W.C.C.! American churches of Christ, fundamental in belief, are outside the W.C.C.; we are affiliated through the "Disciples," whose lapse from N.T. Christianity and Restoration principles has become notorious.

      Finally, I emphasise that, with our congregational form of government, no church of Christ need consider itself bound by the decision of conference, but may immediately repudiate all association with the W.C.C.

--K. A. Macnaughton, Melbourne.      

C. G. Taylor, A.C., 1951, p. 555.

      Labels are handy. When it comes to classifying things they are really essential. But we are quickly in trouble when we try to label people, especially if we dare to probe into another man's mind and label what we find there. We run real risk of libelling instead of labelling. Often, swayed by our own personal bias one way or the other, we decide too quickly on insufficient evidence, bring out our mass-produced label and say: "That man is a . . ." The damage is done when we pass on our catch-phrase to another, plus, not all the evidence, but the points most in favor of our judgment. Finally it is just the catch-phrase that is passed around.

JESUS WAS LABELLED

like that.

      How much damage, do you think, was done by that sneer; "Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners?" (Matt. 11:19). There must have been many people to whom "the hope of Israel" was much more than a pious phrase, who never came within sound of his voice because they heard and believed a charge like that. There was just enough evidence to make it a credible tale. There was certainly nothing lean or ascetic in the man who delighted in a wedding-feast, and was guest at more than one supper-party; but nothing was said about the other side of the story, revealed in his own pathetic words; "Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20).

      Certainly there were tax-gatherers and sinners in his company; he openly declared that such he had come to save. But the critics conveniently forgot that he had never refused an invitation even from men he knew to be plotting his downfall, and that more than one, even from the highest ranks, had come to believe in him. Faced with his teaching and undoubted miracle-working power, they deliberately shut their eyes to all the evidence to the contrary, and spread the specious story; "He hath a devil . . . He casteth out devils by the prince of devils" (John 10:20, Matt. 9:34).

      So the man whom none, when put to the test, could convict of sin, was labelled--and libelled--up and down Palestine as one unworthy of a hearing from devout, respectable men and women. His personal character, conduct, convictions, even the company he kept--all were the target of their hate.

      The full tragedy was that there were men in the highest circles who refused to accept these labels at their face value, but did little to correct them. Doubtless they deplored the aggressiveness of their fellows, and in secret they were ready enough to admit with Nicodemus; "We believe that thou art a teacher come from God" (John 3:2). But in public they lacked the courage of one like the blind man whom Jesus healed, who, when bidden to accept the rulers' verdict of Jesus as a sinner, cried: "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" (John 9:25). He was no further use to them when he would not accept their ready-made label; they excommunicated him on the spot. But, instinctively, he knew a truth they were too blind to see that

LOVE MATTERS MORE THAN LABELS.

      Nor did events prove him wrong. When Jesus knew what had been done to him, he sought him out; the link of love, forged by the healing, became stronger, as faith cried out the wondering: "Lord, I believe." Love scorned the ready-made; it went adventuring and discovered reality.

      It is a sobering thought that it was the religious leaders to whom the labels were so important that they were deaf to the appeal of his love: "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life" (John 5:40). The history of the church he came to build is darkened with the deeds of men to whom labels mattered much more than love. Seeing themselves as defenders of truth, and their own point of view as synonymous with truth, they have waged bitter conflict with both words and swords against all who differed. All too slowly did men win through to the principle of religious toleration, and the spirit of Chillingworth's words: "In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity."

      But negative, wordy controversies still sabotage the church's power. Two interesting letters recently appeared in overseas journals. One was from the army son of an American minister, who, while urging what he thought ought to be the main religious themes of the hour, deplored his own lifelong memories of dissensions. That was futile controversy at the congregational level. The other letter was from a young man, training for the ministry among people of confessedly stricter views than we hold, expressing his dismay at the frequent and public disparaging remarks made concerning fellow-ministers, sometimes for "crimes" like the reading of a book by an "unsafe" author. That is discord on a denominational level. On the world-wide level we find to-day the World Council of Churches confronted by the International Council of christian Churches and kindred bodies.

      There is a grave fear in the minds of some that, in this critical hour which demands the utmost evangelistic effort on the part of a crusading church, there should once again be a turning aside to sterile and futile controversy. Not that controversy need be either sterile or futile. We make a serious mistake if

we think that truth only dwells with harmony. Truth is won at such cost that it must be defended--but always with love.

      I am concerned at the ease with which people on both sides of a controversy turn to labels, and not to the harder tasks of seeking an understanding in love. Sometimes this may be unconscious, but none the less arrogant. A common practice to-day is to use such words and phrases as "believers," "men loyal to the Word," "defenders of the faith," "men of vision," only of those whose viewpoints coincide with ours. The obvious, but often unmeant, implication is that all others are unbelievers, etc. We must guard our words. There is a deliberate use of labels which is even more disturbing. Catch-phrases which label one brotherhood leader as an unsafe "modernist," and another as a bigoted "fundamentalist" (without any pretence of thorough factual evidence) may be equally damaging. One man who conducted a mission a few years ago discovered that he had been labelled in the district as a "modernist," whose own church officers didn't know how to get rid of him because he was slowly emptying the church. In this case the lie was so obvious that the church officers were immediately able to nail it home to the accuser. It seemed to have grown from nothing more substantial than that the missioner worked in brotherhood service alongside another man whom rumor said was "unsafe!"

      There are some big issues ahead of us as members of Australian churches of Christ. Conviction has a right to be heard, but let us first make sure of our facts, and test how much, if at all, our attitude represents merely a point of view whose defence matters more to us than the Prince of Peace himself. And, above all, leave those mass-produced labels alone! "All ye are brethren!"

Published by the Churches of Christ Federal Committee for the Promotion of Christian Union at the

      At the Federal Conference held in Hobart, October, 1950, it was resolved to recommend to the Committee for the Promotion of Christian Unity that it undertake to publish facts concerning the World Council of Churches. Acting under this mandate the committee offers to readers three pamphlets on the questions: What is the World Council of Churches? What of Criticisms of the World Council of churches? What of the Affiliation of Churches of Christ with the World Council of churches?

      The truth about the W.C.C. can be obtained from the first-hand information given in the official report of the first assembly of the W.C.C. Page references in these pamphlets, unless otherwise indicated, are to this publication: "The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches--The Official Report." Members of the Christian Unity Committee have made careful study of the official report and other authentic documents. Information has also been obtained from Australian delegates who were present at the Amsterdam assembly, and first-hand information has been obtained from responsible officials of the W.C.C. and the International Missionary Council in Geneva and New York. Where possible original statements will be given, but where space prevents such the committee accepts responsibility for summary statements which it is willing to support by documentary evidence if required.

I. The Background of the W.C.C.

      The historical background of the W.C.C. makes it quite clear that it is not the product of any one man, or denomination, or national group or council of churches, or any particular school of theology. It sprang from the pressure of historic situations and was kindled in its beginnings by the vision of Christian leaders of world repute, and the movement which led to the formation of the W.C.C. was carried along by the surge of thought which found expression in and was further stimulated by widely representative and world conferences.

      The world missionary conference at Edinburgh, which has been described as one of the most creative events in Christian history, gave a starting point to the ecumenical movement in 1910. From this conference there followed the formation of the Conference of British Missionary Societies, the organisations of councils in India, China and Japan, the formation of the International Missionary Council in 1920 and the World Conference at Tambaram, Madras, in 1938.

      The very fact that discussions of "faith and order" were excluded from the missionary conference seemed to prompt some to think that there ought to be a world conference at which churches could discuss their agreements and differences. Shortly after, the initiative was taken by Bishop Brent, through the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.

      A committee was appointed to invite "all Christian communions throughout the world that confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour" to unite with them in a conference on Faith and Order. The final result was the first world conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne in 1927. It was a conference which simply discussed agreements and differences. Reports of the conference were submitted to participating churches by a Continuation Committee and their replies were published in a volume

entitled "Convictions." Further research was initiated and commissions of experts prepared reports on "The Doctrine of Grace," "The Ministry and the Sacraments," "The Church's Unity in Life and Worship." These prepared the way for a second world conference on "Faith and Order" at Edinburgh in 1937. The aim of this movement was to promote study, to discover and affirm agreements, also discover and face disagreements, and to promote understanding and co-operation in any way possible. It was at this conference that a decision was made to press forward with proposals to form a World Council of Churches.

      From the beginning of this century there were definite movements towards co-operation in Christian work and witness. The meeting of church leaders from America and Europe to promote international friendship led to the formation, in 1914, of the "World Alliance of Churches for Promoting International Friendship." In 1924 an interdenominational Conference on Politics, Economics and Citizenship, "COPEC," was called by the Social Service Unions of the British Churches. This conference at Birmingham prepared the way for a conference on life and work in Stockholm, 1925. Out of this conference grew the Universal Council for Life and Work, and an Institute for Social Research. Largely by the initiative of Dr. J.H. Oldham a conference was organised to discuss the relations of Church, Community and State. This "Life and Work" conference met at Oxford, 1937, just prior to the "Faith and Order" conference at Edinburgh. The proposal to form a World Council of Churches was also presented to this conference and accepted.

      A Provisional Committee met at Utrecht in 1938 and it was planned that the first assembly should meet in 1941. However, war intervened and the first assembly was not destined to meet until August, 1948, when, at Amsterdam, a world conference formally resolved to establish a W.C.C.

II. The Purpose of the W.C.C.

      The purpose of the W.C.C. is made clear in the definition of its functions:

      1. To carry on the work of the two world movements for Faith and Order and Life and Work;

      2. To facilitate common action by the churches;

      3. To promote co-operation in study;

      4. To promote the growth of ecumenical consciousness in the members of all churches;

      5. To establish relations with denominational federations of world-wide scope and with other ecumenical movements;

      6. To call world conferences on specific subjects as occasion may require, such conferences being empowered to publish their own findings;

      7. To support the churches in their task of evangelism. ("Report" pp. 197-198).

      The ultimate aim of the W.C.C. is to promote Christian unity, but no agreement has been reached concerning the nature of unity. Its aim is to discover the will of Christ and promote obedience to Him Who prayed that His followers should be one. Some members of the W.C.C. believe that unity can only mean organic unity in one visible Church. It appears that more believe that unity means a fellowship which does not necessarily find expression in organic unity. No official ecumenical statement has ever been made declaring that the aim of the movement is to establish one visible Church. ("Report" p. 69).

      "The functions of the Council follow from this situation . . . we are above all a fellowship which seeks to express that unity in Christ already given to us and to prepare the way for a much fuller and much deeper expression of that unity."

III. The Nature of the W.C.C.

      The W.C.C. is not in any sense a super-church which will exercise jurisdiction over member churches. It does not control or direct any of its constituent members. It exercises only such powers as member churches agree to confer upon it.

      "The Council desires to serve the churches, which are its constituent members, as an instrument whereby they may bear witness together to their common allegiance to Jesus Christ, and co-operate in matters requiring united action. But the Council is far from desiring to usurp any of the functions which already belong to the constituent churches, or to control them, or to legislate for them, and indeed is prevented by its constitution from doing so. Moreover, while earnestly seeking fellowship in thought and action for all its members, the Council disavows any thought of becoming a single unified church structure independent of the churches which have joined in constituting the Council, or a structure dominated by a centralised administrative authority." ("Report" p. 127).

IV. The Membership of the W.C.C.

      When, in 1910, the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States initiated the "Faith and Order" movement, a delegation was sent to Europe which won support in all

quarters except Rome. The Pope received the delegation but declined the invitation to co-operate. Again, when the W.C.C. was provisionally organised it authorised the late Dr. Temple, then Archbishop of York, to inquire whether the Roman Catholic Church would be in any way able to participate even informally. The answer was that it was impossible, for the Roman Catholic Church had the sole secret of Christian unity in submission to the Pope.

      "Since the Provisional Committee was fully aware of the reasons why that church (R.C.) would not participate in the ecumenical movement, it was not invited to send official delegates to the first Assembly. But in the very early stage of the preparations, in 1939, it was decided to inform the Holy See of the plans which were being made. In view of many inquiries received from Roman Catholics, the Provisional Committee decided in 1947 to invite a limited number of unofficial Roman Catholic observers to attend the Assembly. But although many of the persons invited expressed the strong desire to be at Amsterdam and that, with the knowledge of their immediate superiors, the Holy Office decided in June that permission to go to Amsterdam would not be granted to anybody . . . etc." ("Report" pp. 3031a).

      Other notable exceptions to membership are the Southern Baptists of America and the Russian Orthodox Church. It was hoped at one stage that the Orthodox Church of Russia would participate, but a meeting in Moscow vetoed participation. It adopted a resolution to the effect that the ecumenical movement is a body not really concerned with the unity of the Church but rather with the gaining of political and social influence.

V. The Creedal Basis of the W.C.C.

      The creedal basis of the W.C.C. is clearly stated in the constitution as amended and finally adopted by the Assembly at Amsterdam, August, 1948. Article I declared the basis: "The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour." Article II on Membership reads, "Those churches shall be eligible for membership in the World Council of Churches which express their agreement with the basis upon which the Council is founded." (Cf. "Report," p. 197).

      This simple statement of basic faith has served intentionally to exclude the Unitarians from the Council and they have not been invited to join. In the preliminary documents the following comment appears: "The Provisional Committee desires to confirm its conviction that the Council requires a definite Christo-centric basis and that the present basis which is 'an affirmation of the Incarnation and Atonement' or some better expression thereof is indispensable for the life and development of the Council." (Cf. "Documents," p. 35).

      Dr. W.A. Visser't Hooft, General Secretary of the W.C.C., in presenting the report of the Provisional Committee to the Amsterdam Assembly, said that the basis of membership must remain "Christo-centric, and the affirmation of our Lord's deity must not be weakened, but the present wording of the basis might call for clarification and amplification." (Cf. "Report," p. 31). Writing in one of the preliminary papers he also declared that in the basis in which the Lordship of Christ is affirmed, "the words 'God and Saviour' mean that we acknowledge Him as divine Lord in the radical biblical sense." (Cf. "The Universal Church in God's Design," p. 188c).

      It was expressly stated at Amsterdam that there was no possibility of a reduction of the Christological basis of the W.C.C. If any change did take place it would be in the direction of a fuller trinitarian affirmation.

      The message of the Amsterdam Assembly bears witness clearly to the fundamental faith of the W.C.C. (Cf. "Report," p. 10).

VI. The Social and Political Attitude of the W.C.C.

      The social and political attitude of the W.C.C. may best be presented by simply quoting from the official report of its first assembly. (Cf. "Report," pp. 74-82).

      "The greatest contribution that the Church can make to the renewal of society is for it to be renewed in its own life in faith and obedience to its Lord. Such inner renewal includes a clearer grasp of the meaning of the Gospel for the whole life of men."

      "There are occasions on which the churches, through their councils or through such persons as they may commission to speak on their behalf, should declare directly what they see to be the will of God for the public decisions of the hour. Such guidance will often take the form of warnings against concrete forms of injustice or oppression or social idolatry. They should also point to the main objectives towards which a particular society should move."

      "The Church as such should not be identified with any political party, and it must not act as though it were itself a political party."

      Warnings are issued to opposite schools of social and economic thought concerning superficial assumptions about property, and having condemned certain errors of both Communism and capitalism the report says: "The Christian churches should reject the ideologies of both Communism and laissez-faire capitalism, and should seek to draw men away from the false assumption that these extremes are the only alternatives." Man is called upon to build a responsible society. "It is the responsibility of Christians to seek new, creative solutions which never allow either justice or freedom to destroy the other." There is certainly no identification of the Kingdom of God with a capitalistic or communistic or any other humanistic, social pattern."

      "The World Council of Churches does not seek to 'place pressure' on any national or international body, but to bear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and therefore it has said that it must 'speak boldly in Christ's name both to those in power and to the people!'" (Extract from pamphlet issued by the Australian Council for the W.C.C.).

2. BILLY GRAHAM

A.C., April 8, 1958, pp. 195-196.

      An address given before the Christian Fellowship Association of the Commonwealth Bank, Sydney, by L. K. Green, of the Chatswood Church of Christ, 25.3.58.

      Sydney and other Australian cities are looking forward to the coming visit of the American evangelist, Billy Graham, with mixed feelings. Many sincere Christians are earnestly hoping and praying that this might be the beginning of a true and much-needed revival in Australia. Other Christians are hesitant in committing themselves because of their ignorance as to the exact result of a Crusade led by Dr. Graham. Still others have feelings of scepticism and even contempt, because of half-truths and criticisms levelled at the great evangelist.

      Any man in the limelight is bound to be the butt of many criticisms. Billy Graham has received more than his share. Some of these are very serious; some merely reflect the shallowness of the critics. Let us look at a few of them.

Too Emotional?

      The most common criticism, both in Christian and non-Christian circles, is that Billy Graham is too emotional. The feeling seems to be that many of his decisions come as a result of tear jerking stories designed to force people into deciding for something that they really do not favor. I have personally been privileged to hear Dr. Graham on many occasions, under such differing circumstances as a meeting in a huge stadium, filled with some 40,000 people, and a rather small group of ministers. In the many times that I heard him speak I can truthfully say that he has conscientiously avoided stories which play on the emotions. Of course, emotion is a vital element in religion, and any well-rounded minister must present his message in such a way as to stir this faculty of the human personality. I do think that Dr. Graham should be praised rather than criticised for his handling of this delicate matter. Charles Potter, formerly a secretary of the Communist Party in London, is quoted as saying that one of the important factors in his conversion to Christianity was "the unspectacular appeal made by Billy Graham."

Not Preaching Full Gospel?

      Another serious criticism of Graham has been that he does not preach the "full gospel." I am afraid that most people making this criticism are ignorant of what the "full gospel" means. According to present day Biblical scholars, the Kerygma, or proclamation of the gospel, consisted simply of the story of the birth, life, teachings, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Again, from my personal knowledge of Graham's ministry I can say unequivocally that he preaches the gospel.

      Now as to the matter of dealing in specific doctrines directly related to the gospel, it is usually agreed that the task of the evangelist is to gain decisions for Christ from his hearers, rather than to lead them immediately into a mature and full understanding of all of the implications of the Christian life. This must remain the task of the preachers in dealing with those who are converted under the evangelist's preaching. If Dr. Graham dealt with such matters, his ministry as an evangelist sponsored by many different Christian communions would immediately end. He has taken the only course left open to him that will enable him to continue in a ministry reaching many thousands who would otherwise be untouched by the gospel.

Not Facing Race Problem?

      Related to this criticism is one that is widely made; specifically, that he does not deal enough with the problem of race relations. Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, of New York City, a man whom I deeply respect, has repeatedly made this criticism. I agree with Dr. Niebuhr that the most crucial problem facing the Churches today is in the area of race, but I would answer his criticism in the same way that I answered the criticism of those who say Graham fails to preach the whole gospel. In my own estimation Billy Graham has done more good toward ending racial segregation than any "white" minister I know. He has held unsegregated Crusades in such strongholds of segregation in the "Deep South" as New Orleans and Nashville, Tennessee. He refuses to hold a meeting in any place that is segregated in any way. He preaches in his Crusade the duty of the Christian to love all men, regardless of race. I have heard him do so.

Not Reaching "Outsiders?"

      Another criticism levelled at Dr. Graham is that most of the people who make decisions in his campaigns are already church members. The fact of the matter is that a survey recently made by the New York Times shows that some sixty per cent of the decisions referred to the churches were already church members. It would be more accurate to say the "majority" rather than "most," which is misleading, but even here we must admit that there are too many church members who are not Christians, and who are in need of being converted. If even half of these sixty per cent of church members who made decisions were formerly not truly committed Christians (and I feel the number would be greater,) then the number of conversions would be significant. The idea of a revival is to "revive," and Graham's campaigns have revived many churches.

Not Holding Converts?

      Another criticism often made is that the converts made in the Graham meetings do not last. If the people making this criticism were truly honest, they would add "and neither do many converts made during the regular life of the church." It has been carefully estimated that the number of people who make decisions in the Graham Crusades who do not last are not much larger percentage-wise than the number of converts who make decisions during regular church services and fail to stick to it.

Not Economical?

      Still another criticism is that Graham's Campaigns cost too much. In his recent New York Crusade, the total expenditure exceeded 1,000,000 pounds but of this amount only some 350,000 pounds came from offerings taken during the Crusade. The rest came from private contributors and television audiences. If secular industry can spend millions of pounds annually in advertising and selling their products, then surely Christianity can spend this comparatively small amount in carrying the gospel to many thousands who otherwise would not respond.

      There are other criticisms, some of which might be justified, although I think those that are are very minor in importance, but we need to realise that Billy Graham is not supernatural and free from sin. We would do a great deal more for him and the cause of Christ, to pray for him rather than criticise.

Secret of Success

      The question might be raised, "Just exactly what is the secret of his success?" I believe this is closely connected to the following facts: He is a deeply consecrated and sincere Christian; he is a truly humble man. How he continues to be humble in the midst of all of the clamor I do not understand, but I do know that any time a person is willing to yield himself unreservedly to be used by the Holy Spirit unusual things will happen.

      Another factor in his success is the tremendous publicity campaign carried on prior to, and during, his Crusades. You cannot spend a half-million pounds, and even more, on publicity, and fail to get results. Graham used one of New York City's leading advertising firms to handle his public relations. His publicity is carried out in a very scientific manner, making use of the latest methods available.

      Graham personally contributes any success to three things: (1) Team Work--and he does have one of the most highly co-ordinated teams in religion today; (2) Prayer; and (3) the Power of the Holy Spirit. It is notable that Graham was an unknown and unpublicised evangelist until the Los Angeles Crusade of 1949, when Prayer Groups were established throughout the city and hundreds, even thousands, of Christian men and women began praying for the success of that Crusade. It was a tremendous success, and this method of extensive prayer has been used ever since. Graham sincerely attributes any ability he may have to the power of the Holy Spirit. This has been true of every outstanding evangelist in the

history of Christendom. We might also mention such things as a wonderful personality, above-average intellect, and a good delivery as important factors.

Our Attitude

      The crucial question for us today is "What should be my attitude and place as a Christian in relation to the coming Graham Crusades in Australia?" Of the many things that I could list, here are what I believe to be the most important points:

      We should pray; we should pray not only that God will bless Dr. Graham in the Campaigns, and that the "lost" will attend, but we should also pray that God will use us in every way possible to bring about the success of the meeting.

      We should refrain from criticism, and speak only where we have knowledge.

      We should encourage our friends to attend the meetings. We should see to it that certain people whom we are interested in leading to Christ get to the meetings, even though we might have to take them ourselves.

      We should volunteer to serve on any Committee, or to be trained as a Counsellor, or do whatever is needed to make the Campaign a success.

      We should see to it that our local church does not plan for meetings and institutes and such, which would directly conflict with the Graham Campaign.

      Most important of all, we should completely yield our lives to Christ that he may be enabled to use us in whatever way he sees fit, that this might be the beginning of a true revival in Australia.

3. BAPTISM

A.C., 1958, p. 220.

      Nobody could desire unity among Christians more than myself, having been a student at the Ecumenical Institute, Geneva. However, when one comes to the question of doctrine we meet with, at times, insurmountable obstacles.

      Recently a brilliant theologian visited Lismore and virtually slashed the Bible to ribbons; declaring it to be a concoction of truth and error. A furor raged in the local paper for days, the writer and others defending the Bible. The theologian had his supporters in the Ministers' Fraternal--yet with these men we are urged to live peaceably. Believers and unbelievers make Scriptural unity an impossibility where we are sundered apart concerning essential doctrines; and that the Bible is the Word of God is one of them.

      Come closer home--to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. Churches of Christ thunder forth many trumpets on the question of baptism; often, if not almost always, "remission of sins" is conveniently omitted and substituted by "a badge of discipleship." "an external sign of an inward experience," "an act of obedience"--in many instances those advocating the latter instead of the former uphold a Baptist platform, not Church of Christ. Tolerance at the expense of truth so often brings chaos, never unity.

      Dr. A. P. Treweek, Prof. of Greek, Sydney University, commenting on Acts 2:38 recently said: "The preposition 'for' expresses purpose, not result; it looks ahead. Arndt and Gringrich say 'with the purpose given' when referring to this passage." Dr. Treweek says one is baptised for the remission of sins, not because sins are already remitted.

      Alexander Campbell had liberal views, as expressed in the "Lunenburg Letter," and in his debate with Bishop Purcell, but none can deny the truth of his seven essays on immersion (Christian Baptist); repentance and baptism being for the remission of sins. Campbell declared: "Our theory thunders terror to none but the self-condemned." On this platform alone should we state who and what we are.

--Arnold C. Caldicott, Lismore, N.S.W.      

A.C., 1958, p. 306.

      If difference of interpretation of the little word "for" is to be an "insurmountable obstacle" to unity among the Churches, as suggested by Arnold C. Caldicott (A.C. 15/4/58), then all church history has taught us just nothing. It was just such an argument which split the Church between East and West centuries ago.

      No theory of forgiveness which looks like a system of bookkeeping--"do this and the slate will be wiped clean"--can even be Christian. It cuts clear across the fundamental idea of God as a father, the idea of a relationship. Not even God can restore a broken relationship without a change of heart in the prodigal.

      I wouldn't want to argue questions of Greek with Dr. A. P. Treweek, but surely his own words confound Mr. Caldicott's interpretation of the doctor, whom he quotes as saying (in comment on the phrase "for the remission of sins"); ". . . 'for' expresses purpose, not result; it looks ahead . . ." If that means anything at all, it must mean that "for" is not just concerned with wiping a slate clean; it is concerned with future as well as past sin. In other words, it refers to a change of heart, a new slant on life, a new discipleship. To try to separate past, present, and future, to pin a mechanical interpretation on a spiritual experience, is to make it barren and divisive.

      To call Alexander Campbell to support such literal rigidity would make that very great man turn in his grave. Campbell fought against this very thing--his attitude to Aylett Raines, the Lunenburg Letter, indeed his whole attitude of mind are foreign to this kind of imposition of verbal prison on other people's sincere interpretations.

      Mr. Caldicott is fully entitled to his own interpretation of the word "for," but he is not entitled to erect his interpretation as a view we must all accept. He and i are probably both wrong in our interpretations and the only important thing about them is that we should be willing to admit that. What Christ said is clear; to impose any interpretation of them as binding is completely foreign to the whole conception and history of our movement.

--W.S. Lowe, Brighton, Vic.      

4. WCC AND ICCC

A.C., 1958, p. 402.

      I read with concern in A.C. 3/5/58, a message to preachers from the Committee for Promotion of Christian Unity, with a letter over the signatures of the Presidents of W.C.C.. My own experience of W.C.C. is as follows:--

      (a) In 1955 I almost lost my Christian faith through the Student Christian Movement, affiliated with W.C.C., due to the active propagation of heresies (in particular, the evolution of God); it was only God's grace that rescued me from these straits.

      (b) I have studied the W.C.C. blue-print for church unity--the Church of South India--and feel that it is no more than a sellout by the other participants to the Anglicans.

      (c) In the circle of W.C.C. activity which I have seen, there is a feeling that it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you are sincere and don't disturb other people. The fallacies of this paralytic liberalism are so gross as to be obvious.

      This is only a personal experience, and will differ from that of others, but it must determine my own attitude to W.C.C.

      The basic division in the church today is not interdenominational, but found in every denomination; viz., those whose sole faith is in the Bible, and those who reject whole, or part, or add to it. There can be no compromise because of Rev. 22:18-19. W.C.C. and its partisans often quote John 17:21, "That they all may be one," but the word continues "even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee"--so that church unity is worthwhile only in the mutual love, faith and hope of Father and Son.

--John M. Stanhope, Lane Cove, N.S.W.      

A.C., 1956, p. 146.

      In your editorial (A.C. Jan. 31), when discussing the tour of the I.C.C.C. leaders, you deplored the "emergence of a Jesuit-like spirit which justifies any means to accomplish its ends" . . . I heard these men speak in Perth, and never before have I heard men so filled with a self-righteous spirit of bitterness.

      "To speak the truth in love," ought to be the desire of every follower of Christ. At the I.C.C.C. meeting I attended, there was much distortion of truth and an absence of love.

      Dr. Slade, when making the point that modernism is upheld by the W.C.C. referred, for some obscure reason, to the American Revised Standard Version of the Scriptures, saying, "This translation denies the Virgin Birth." This is false. (See in A.R.S.V. Is. 7:14, footnote, and Matt. 1:23). But, more importantly, the speaker's implication that this co-called modernist translation was published by the W.C.C. is likewise false. Its publication was authorised by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in U.S.A.

      Poor evidence this, of modernism in the W.C.C.

      Dr. McIntyre used most of his time in a McCarthy-like attack on J. L. Hromadka, of Czechoslovakia. During this speech he quoted Hromadka as saying that he had once been a member of the Communist Party. Alongside this he placed Hromadka's statement, made on his arrival in Sydney recently, in which he said, "I am not a Communist." Dr. McIntyre then, with his own distorted interpretation of these two statements, said, "In his first statement Hromadka admitted membership of the Communist Party, but now, here in Sydney, he denies that he is, or ever has been, a member of the Party."

      This is precisely what Dr. Hromadka did not say, in Sydney.

      These typical examples surely reveal that these men are willing to justify means to accomplish an end.

--A. West, Native Mission, Roelands, W.A.      
(Edited to conform to 300 words limit).      

5. THE UNITING CHURCH

Report of Federal Committee for the Promotion of Christian Union in Churches of Christ

      The Committee published a statement indicating its sympathy with and interest in the proposed basis of union between Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists in this country. Having studied the report, our committee has prepared a response which is now before State committees for their consideration, in the hope that a considered statement can be forwarded at an early date to the U.C.A.

      We have noted that the U.C.A. report looks toward a wider union, and this Committee believes that their proposals deserve careful study by Churches of Christ.

      The Federal Department of Christian Union, on behalf of the Churches of Christ in Australia, expresses its great interest in and sympathy for the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches in their endeavour to discover a basis for union between them. We pray them God's blessing in this task to which He has directed them.

      The Federal Conference of Churches of Christ, out of a deep concern for expressing the unity of Christ's Church, has agreed that Churches of Christ should enter into conversations with the negotiating churches.

      Conversation does not commit us to acceptance of the proposed basis as it now stands, but we do accept that basis as a good starting point for discussion. We recognise that before there can be any negotiations for union a vote of our whole membership throughout Australia must be taken in all local churches.

      This response has been prepared after careful study and discussion with Christian Union Committees and representative groups in all States.

      In presenting these comments we address ourselves both to members of Churches of Christ, and to members of the Uniting Churches. There are some features of the Report which do not find expression in the present practices and emphases of Churches of Christ, but which we believe demand earnest consideration because they witness to important Biblical truths.

      These matters need to be discussed within Churches of Christ, and at these points our concern is to state and clarify the issues for our own members. Nevertheless, we think that the Uniting Churches would wish to know of the points under discussion.

      There are other aspects about which we are constrained to express disagreement, or to raise questions because of basic convictions which are a part of the heritage of Churches of Christ, and which we are persuaded express important Biblical truths. Such comments and questions are directed primarily to the Uniting Churches for their further consideration. (These are printed below in the black type).

      While we cannot escape our conviction that God's will has found expression in our traditional understanding and practice, we acknowledge that all traditions must be subject to constant testing under God's Word and submission to the will of God must make us ready for new departures in obedience.

      Thus we heartily commend the approach of the Commission in resolving that "we are required to place ourselves afresh under God's Word and ask the question: 'What is God's will for us?'" (p.5.).

1. Statement of Faith

      When separated brethren seek unity it is necessary that there be the assurance of a basic, common faith. An affirmation of the faith of the Church lays a necessary foundation. We, as members of Churches of Christ, find ourselves in general agreement with the Joint Commission's statement, "the Faith of the Church." We note that Creeds and Confessions are accepted as means of teaching, aids to worship and witnesses to the faith, and not as tests of fellowship.

      Churches of Christ have avoided the use of creeds and confessions as tests of fellowship, because it has been felt that such a use has tended to divide rather than unite, to foster definition rather than devotion to a person, and to give authority to extra-biblical interpretations.

      This traditional attitude may make it difficult for some to accept any use of historical creeds. However, if the use be as suggested above, such a use may be accepted in spite of the danger of their becoming tests of fellowship.

      In view of our refusal to make historical Creeds tests of fellowship we have some questions concerning the statement about Creeds as "authoritative statements of the Faith." May we take this to mean that creeds preserve the common understanding of the Faith as given in the Scriptures, and does this mean that they are simply a framework for instruction in the Faith? (Cf. 42a). We also would like to ask, 'At "Confirmation," do the Creeds merely stand as witnesses to the historic faith, 'or are they, in any sense, tests of fellowship?"

2. The Sacraments (Ordinances)
      (a) Baptism

      We find ourselves in substantial agreement with the U.C.A. report in statements it makes concerning the doctrine of baptism. Baptism gives "a participation in the benefits of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension" (p. 12(2)), "Everyone who is baptized participates in God's commission to witness and serve in the world" (p. 12(3). "Baptism is also the incorporation into the unity of the one Body of Christ . . . baptism is the effectual sign of the power given in Christ to participate in this mission (of the Church)" (p. 12(3).

      We also agree with such a statement as "Faith is inseparably related to baptism, because the gift of Christ calls forth a response, in which the self is opened to the approach of Jesus Christ so that the believer is incorporated into Christ and grows up into Him. Because the meaning of baptism is not exhausted by the performances of the rite of baptism at a point of time, but stands over the entire life of the believer as the sign and seal of his participation in the whole drama of saving history, faith too must be seen as dynamic and growing" (p. 12-13).

      However, there are some matters concerning baptism about which we must ask and comment, especially the way in which the doctrine of baptism is applied to infants. On page 12 it is said that faith is inseparably related to baptism, but some things are said both before and after this statement that suggest that baptism procures things in itself apart from faith. There appears to be, at least, a minimising of the response of faith. It is true that baptism points to the facts of the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of Christ--to God's grace and initiative (to what

Christ has done), but it also points to man's response. These two emphases should be kept together in the doctrine of baptism. As an incorporation into Christ baptism is an active putting on of Christ, and a rising to walk in newness of life.

      We agree that there is a "dynamic and grooving faith" which follows baptism, but we believe that this is a growth "from (personal) faith to faith," rather than a growth from no faith to faith. We register our conviction that personal faith should accompany baptism at all times.

      We recognise that for those who accept infant baptism "confirmation" must be important, because the act of baptism by the Church can only be completed by the response of faith associated with "confirmation." But we believe that baptism contains in itself all that "confirmation" seeks to express. Thus we would understand that baptism is the effectual sign that God gives the Holy Spirit to each member (p. 13) and not "confirmation" (p. 43).

      There is no discussion in the Report on the question of who are the subjects of baptism. If baptism is explained solely in terms of "what Christ has done" for His people, and the element of personal response is left out, the baptism of all infants, not only those of believing parents may be justified. But the element of response in baptism means that something other than baptism should be used to recognise the place of the child in the covenant of grace. Baptism should be reserved for the time when the person, in faith, recognises and appropriates the saving grace of God.

      We do recognise, however, the need among Churches of Christ to give attention to the relation of infants to the Church.

      While the Proposed Basis of Union endorses baptism by immersion, pouring or sprinkling (p. 42), we affirm our conviction that as baptism is an act of incorporation in which there is a meeting of God's initiative and man's response, the act of immersion alone truly symbolises the inner nature of baptism as death, burial and resurrection. Romans 6 would suggest that this was one real reason why the apostolic and early church practised immersion.

      We would ask what is meant by "the gifts of baptism" referred to in the closing sentence of paragraph b on p. 13.

      (b) The Lord's Supper

      In Churches of Christ the service of the Lord's Supper is celebrated weekly as the normative act of Christian Worship.

3. Ministry

      We welcome the re-iteration of the point that the whole church is a priesthood, and responsible for the total Christian mission and ministry. Within this ministering body there is the gift of an inner ministry to help equip the total body for its ministry (p. 18).

      Some among churches of Christ hold that the practical call of a mail to minister in a local congregation is in itself ordination. Others however, regard formal ordination as desirable. In ordination, on this view, the Church recognises God's call to the ministry, confirms the ordained as a representative of the Church, and invokes God's blessing on his ministry.

      We recognise the need among Churches of Christ for further study on this question.

      We would ask the Commission if they would expand and clarify the significance of the laying on of hands by the bishop and the presbytery at ordination, and what is meant by "the gist of God's Holy Spirit" in this context. Is the gift of the Holy spirit himself meant, or his gifts for ministry? (Page 44, (a) and (b) at bottom of page).

      In Churches of Christ it is common to regard the minister as an elder, and he is said to have the authority of one elder within a plurality of elders in the local congregation.

      However, there is considerable feeling that we need to re-examine the relation between the minister and the elders. Indeed, there is wide recognition throughout churches of Christ in Australia that the whole question of the ministry needs re-examination by us.

      We would question why the duty of leading the worship and conducting the Lord's Supper should be confined to Presbyters. Could not ordination for this purpose be extended to others who obviously have the gift to minister in this way, as is suggested in the Proposed Basis of Union in New Zealand?

      We think this would be a way of giving opportunity for those with particular gifts to exercise a ministry, and would help to avoid clericalism. It would also preserve the idea of the involvement of the whole Church in ministry. We feel that the concept of E. Schweizer, quoted with approval on page 19, has not been translated fully into the proposed structure of the ministry. Is the conduct of baptism to be confined to Presbyters? If so, we would make the same comment as made concerning the Lord's Supper.

      While accepting the special duties of a presbyter, as outlined on (p. 23) we would re-emphasise that these should not be exclusive. It is this concern that prompts us to ask for clarification of paragraph (c) on page 24, which refers to deacons having a "limited but genuine participation in the one order of the ministry of Word and Sacraments." In what sense is it genuine and in what way is it limited?

      On page 25 it is stated that those appointed for life in the separate denominations will retain life tenure in the Uniting Church. Will newly appointed deacons in the Uniting Church be appointed for life?

      Deacons, as defined by the Report of the Commission, are ordained as a part of the "one 'order' of the ministry." How will their identity with and representation of the congregation be preserved?

      The principle of episcope (oversight) is sanctioned by the New Testament and confirmed by experience. There is no debate about the oversight of presbyters or bishops in the congregation.

      Historically, our churches have been congregationally autonomous, and any association with other congregations has been on a purely voluntary basis. Conferences of Churches of Christ have only an advisory capacity, with no right of authority in the life of local congregations. There are those who would still adhere to this position.

      This position is felt, however, to be inadequate by others in Churches of Christ. They hold that there are grounds in New Testament teaching and precedent for episcope beyond the local congregation. These would claim that the various descriptions of the Church in the New Testament make it plain that it is a universal that finds expression in its parts in particular places.

      An oversight of the parts in the interests both of the part and the whole is right and necessary. The early oversight of the Apostles gives a precedent for this. The appointment of Timothy and Titus from without, and their acting in a representative way, is also a New Testament example of episcope beyond the congregation. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) was an act of oversight in the interest of both the whole and the parts.

      Where oversight is exercised by Church courts and committees, either within a local congregation or beyond it, we should recognise the need of both personal representation and personal oversight. Relationships within the Church are essentially personal.

      We are aware of a prejudice regarding the title, "bishop," but we recognise it as a New Testament title. We believe it was used interchangeably with "presbyter" in Apostolic times, and we recognise that it is an appropriate title to suggest the New Testament principle of personal episcope.

      Those who do not accept any episcope beyond the congregation do not recognise the role of the bishop as envisaged in the U.C.A. Report. But those who would accept such episcope would make the following comments:--

      1. They would emphasise a conviction, shared by all members of Churches of Christ, that presbyterial or episcopal oversight in Apostolic times was exercised by a plurality of presbyters or bishops. Plurality, then, is a principle within the principle of episcope, whether within the local congregation or beyond it. This principle may be safeguarded by the emphasis on one order of the ministry, which seems to suggest that there is really a parity within the ordained ministry and that in the exercise of oversight the bishop is acting representatively and is subject to the presbytery which he represents. If this be the meaning and practical outworking of bishops in presbytery their point is met.

      2. Episcope beyond the congregation may provide a safeguard against irresponsible independency. But is there sufficient safeguard in the provision of episcope in the congregation against an undue over-riding by the episcope beyond the congregation? We see the necessity of balance in this relationship and feel there is need for clearer definition of their respective spheres of authority.

      3. The matter of a concordat with the Church of South India is a point of difference and discussion in the Uniting Church. Hence we do not regard it as a matter for our judgment at this stage save to say that we think this matter is subsidiary to the major issue of the episcope.

4. Government of the Church

      We wholeheartedly concur with the insistence "that the ultimate authority in the life of the Church belongs to God and has been committed to the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18)" (p. 32).

      We also agree that Christ's authority is mediated through persons and corporate bodies, and that the will of God is discerned by Christian counsel (p.32).

      We also accept the conclusion that a mediate, practical authority belongs to Church Councils, but that at all times the Word of God provides a criterion for mutual checking as between council and council, and between individuals within the community and councils.

      On pages 45-46 it is stated that General Councils have supreme authority and then that the General Assembly (National Council) shall have ultimate responsibility. We would ask the Commission to elaborate the meanings of "supreme authority" and "ultimate responsibility," for undoubtedly they are not synonymous.

      The statement that where Church Meetings exist at the time of union, they may continue to exercise their powers of local government, seems to suggest that Church Meetings are contingent (p. 34). This appears to us to be inconsistent with the statement, with which we agree, that a congregation is in its own particular area the embodiment of the "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church . . ." (pp. 33-34). Moreover we think that the encouragement to congregations to meet frequently should not be conditioned by their being a manageable size (p. 46).

      It is provided that Deacons shall be elected by the communicant members of the congregation, "subject to the approval of the Council of the Congregation." "Council of the Congregation" is apparently used here to mean the Parish Council, and if so the nomination and election of Deacons would be subject to an existing group of Deacons and the Presbyter. We question this limitation of the right of the congregation to nominate and elect.

      Provision is made for lay membership of the Presbytery (The Diocesan Council). These lay members are appointed by the Council itself (p. 35). This same Council appoints lay members of the Synod (The State or Regional Council) and the Synod appoints laymen to membership in the General Assembly (The National Council) (p. 35). We question this limitation of the congregations in appointing representative laymen to the Councils. We think the congregation should, at least, have the right to elect laymen to the Presbytery. From there on the Councils may have the power to appoint laymen out of those originally elected by the congregations. At all times a balance should be maintained between presbyters and laymen.

      We recommend readers to make a careful study of the matters brought to our notice, both in the Report and in this statement.

6. THE AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIAN

C.E. (Q), 1966, Jan. p. 8.

      Brotherhood Decay.--Since coming to Australia I have been saddened by evidences of spiritual decay which would not have been possible a generation ago when I lived in W.A. You have seen some of the letters in the Australian Christian, criticizing the Bible, doubting baptism by immersion, ridiculing the Restoration ideals and even sympathizing with Communist aggression. We are going to have to do something about this. Above all we should pray that God will send us a flood-tide of His Spirit to burn up this dross. We will do what we can from a human point of view too. Mr. Sargent has suggested to the Australian Christian that I be permitted to write a column for them. Also, possibly in association with Challenge Press we plan to put out a series of booklets on the truths of the Restoration Movement.

C.M. (N.S.W.), March 1968, p. 11.

      The Bible, the Issue. Apart from a few off beat exceptions the theology of the Australian Churches of Christ is conservative. There is almost universal agreement on the basic doctrine of the faith. The dividing issue appears to be on the authority of the Bible. The main view is the traditional position that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, true in every sense of the word. The other opinion is that the Bible merely contains the Word of God and some error, myth and legend besides. Those of us who are traditionalists vigorously oppose this other view on two grounds. (1) It is not the view of the Bible held by Christ. (2) It leaves the determination of truth to mere subjective opinion. A great deal of confusion and rumour could be avoided if each theological college would clearly state its position on these basic issues.

A. E. White, A.C., 1966, p. 19.

      It was disturbing to read in the Kenmore Christian College news-sheet for April, 1966 the following item:

      The College Board has decided to purchase space in the "Australian Christian" once a month, wherein Dr. Jauncey will present the conservative viewpoint of the Restoration Movement. This will be in lieu of the present weekly advertisement.

      "It had been hoped that space would be provided free for this purpose, but a suggestion made to the editor on this matter was declined."

      Because this item gives the impression that a reasonable request for space was refused, it is necessary to give the background and make some comment.

      In the January issue of the "Christian Echo," the Queensland monthly paper, an item appeared from the pen of Dr. James H. Jauncey, Principal of Kenmore Christian College, entitled "Brotherhood Decay." Among other things it said: "You have seen some of the letters in the "Australian Christian" criticising the Bible, doubting baptism by immersion, ridiculing the Restoration ideals, and even sympathising with Communist aggression. We are going to have to do something about this . . . Mr. Sargent (Qld. Associate-Director for the "A.C." has suggested to the 'Australian Christian' that I be permitted to write a column for them."

      If anybody attempted to criticise the Bible, doubt immersion, ridicule Restoration ideals, and even sympathise with Communist aggression, he would be promptly put in his place by correspondents to the "Open Forum" page. If the "Echo" item referred to fringe thinking in our brotherhood, it hardly justified such a strong statement. If it referred to brotherhood representative thinking, I could not recall such letters ever having appeared in the "A.C." In any case, it seemed to me far too provocative an introduction for the commencement of such a column.

      There was, in addition, a misunderstanding. Mr. Sargent had in mind a column dealing with personal problems which could be answered from the standpoint of a Christian psychologist. The possibility of such a column proved attractive to me, and I immediately indicated my willingness to discuss it further. Dr. Jauncey is especially well equipped to give such guidance. However, I was not disposed to accept a column for the purpose set out in the "Echo."

      When I wrote to Dr. Jauncey, I pointed out the facilities available to him. General articles could be written by him, and the Open Forum page was also available. I stated that I had done nothing to restrict freedom of expression, even if the content of an article were critical. I said, "It is not my intention to impose any kind of censorship on you if you feel impelled to speak for something you think is neglected in our position, or against something which you think has been wrongly added to our plea."

      Then the Kenmore item appeared and the suggestion to the ordinary reader is that the only way to get the conservative emphasis into the "A.C." is to buy space. Dr. Jauncey has since assured me that he did not intend to give that impression, and I accept that assurance gladly) However, folk reading it did get such an impression. One prominent churchman in Queensland immediately reacted by writing angrily, "The last straw, I feel, is your knock-back of a man who has something to say . . . I refer to Dr. Jauncey and his willingness to write a series of articles, and your refusal to publish unless he pays for advertising space."

      It was this kind of reaction that makes this statement necessary.

      Articles get into the "A.C." in several ways. Some are asked for specifically by me, but even in such cases the Associate-Editors are free to make their own selection of writers. The Associate-Directors, appointed by the Conference Executive in each State, have perfect freedom to express their own points of view. They can also suggest topics and writers. In addition, any member of our brotherhood can, and does write articles on any subject without being asked.

      No article has ever been rejected because "it represented the conservative viewpoint of the Restoration Movement."

      Every effort is made to ensure that each State can confidently look to the "A.C." as its own State paper, giving the news and views of its members and faithfully presenting the Restoration message.

      The request for a paid column was, of course, rejected. To have accepted it would imply an acceptance of the view that the conservative emphasis is restricted. It would also imply that the liberal viewpoint has privileged expression, and this is not true.

      I could not imagine any journalistic policy which could make it easier for the brotherhood to express its views than the present policy of the "Australian Christian," and no departure from that policy is contemplated.

7. STANDARD LESSONS

A.C., 1967, p. 9.

      The N.S.W. Department of Christian Education in the last month made a very important and far-reaching decision. Two special conferences preceded the decision.

      In January of this year, Federal Board representatives and N.S.W. representatives met at Woolwich. The talks helped to determine the present position. No actual action was forthcoming.

      On Sept 7, Federal Conference Executive representatives, A.W. Stephenson, E.W. Roffey, A.E. White, along with four Executive members of the Federal Board of Christian Education, met with the N.S.W. Conference Executive and State D.C.E. members. The discussion was concerned with the implications of reprinting Standard lessons here in Australia.

      The N.S.W. Department of Christian Education felt that there was no alternative but to reprint Standard lesson material, published by the Standard Publishing Co., Ohio, U.S.A. The N.S.W. State Conference Executive has endorsed this action. The material will be available about the middle of 1968.

      It should be clearly stated that the reprint is to be offered to schools as the alternate material to Federal Board of Christian Education material. At present there are other lesson systems being used by those who have swung off Australian Churches of Christ Graded Lessons. No campaign is to be waged in N.S.W. against the F.B.C.E. material. Schools are at liberty to choose for themselves from the two materials.

      The Federal Board of Christian Education, which has produced lesson materials for our churches in Australia and New Zealand for twenty years, deeply regrets the decision of the N.S.W. Department of Christian Education to reprint and publish Standard lesson materials for schools in that State.

      Every effort has been made by the F.B.C.E. to help the N.S.W. Department. At the same time, the Board as a Federally appointed body, has a responsibility to serve the whole Australian brotherhood in producing materials which reflect the main stream of our thinking as a people.

      At the January conference, the F.B.C.E. listened to what N.S.W. delegates had to say about the present materials. The conference finally agreed on eleven points to which the Board would give attention. Six weeks later the N.S.W. Director wrote on behalf of the Department; "We would not like you to think that to make some accommodation to our way of thinking even on all the eleven points would be sufficient to satisfy our needs."

      The N.S.W. Department announced by the Federal Board conference in July that it was investigating the possibility of reprinting Standard materials in N.S.W., and negotiations were under way.

      At a further conference arranged by the Federal Conference Executive with the N.S.W. Conference Executive, the N.S.W. Department and the F.B.C.E., an appeal was made by several speakers that we make every endeavour to maintain our unity in the matter of our teaching materials. This meeting was sensitive to the problem that exists in N.S.W.

      The F.B.C.E. is acutely aware of the fact that a number of our schools in N.S.W. use materials produced by different independent bodies. However, it does not see the solution of the problem to lie in

the Australian reprint of another independent lesson system in which there can be no real share in the writing.

      We note the assurance given at the Board conference that these overseas materials are to be published for schools in N.S.W. desiring to use them. The Department will not promote these materials elsewhere in Australia.

      The Board feels it to be a matter for very serious concern that one State out of the whole Australian brotherhood has taken this step.

C.M. (N.S.W.), April 1970, p. 4.

      The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S.A. has climaxed half a century of planning. It is now constituted denominationally, complete with budding hierarchy! It has not been without great cost. There are two other streams that have come from the same source. Both are numerically stronger and seemingly more active in evangelism and missionary work than the parent stream.

      The great movement that aspired to unity was hard hit by division in the beginning of the 20th century. There is not room to deal with the many shades of opinion. There was a key issue. It was the surrender of the local authority to church agencies. The idea of agencies seemed fine, but the concern in theory became reality in practice. Instrumental music was an issue, but of less intensity. It involved a great deal of "position defence" rather than open examination of the scriptures. However, those who separated themselves from the main stream went without the organ. They usually carry the name Church of Christ. Their estimated membership is two-and-a-half million in 17,000 congregations.

      The second great separation followed within 20 years. The European development of biblical "higher criticism" began to permeate the Bible seminaries of the U.S.A. Scholars within the Disciples movement began to accept and teach these liberal doctrines. (Recent publications officially indicate that they still do). Among the results was open membership. Many churches became independent of the Disciples, calling themselves Christian Churches. They kept themselves free of liberal theology and the developing net of denominationalism. The standard publishing house has played a large part in this. Today's estimates of their numerical strength are one-and-a-half million.

      Historically at this present time, Australia and New Zealand are facing some of these threats already sustained in America.

1. Extra Congregational Control

      Churches of Christ in Australia work within State structures. The state structure or conference is designed to serve its member churches, not control them. There are times when our departments must give the lead. This is their advisory capacity. When these directives are intended to be mandatory or binding we must take great care. Because Australia chooses to work in a conference structure we must make sure that the local church controls its State work by participation at that level. The reverse control is Biblically unsound.

      There would appear to be unhealthy developments in some Australian States and in New Zealand. Local churches are surrendering their rights, wittingly or unwittingly, to this brotherhood level of extra-congregational control. The step that follows is to make them respond to that Brotherhood central control-a test of fellowship!

2. Liberal Theology

      Our century has seen a massive attack on the Word of God. The chains on the Bible kept the middle ages in darkness. The liberation of the Bible brought freedom and cleansing to Church doctrine and the Christian alike.

      The attack of the liberal theologian has seen the denial of the miraculous; a the rejection--as imagery or mythological--of segments of the Old Testament; the denial of the deity of Jesus; the pronouncement that "God is dead." These are stains on the Bible. Most susceptible to this attack around the globe, has been the Divinity School, Theological College and forms of Bible Curricula--especially Sunday School lesson material.

      My observation from the recent world tour is that where several denominations are co-operating in the production of teaching material-- the position adopted to accommodate participating bodies, is the

liberal or higher critical position. The Bible is little more than an anaemic paper tight with clothboard cover and a few neutral or inoffensive stories.

      Australia and New Zealand are but further victims of this attack.

3. Ecumenism

      The ecclesiastical "in thing" for the 70's is merger or union! New Zealand is already practicing "reciprocal" or open membership between five church bodies. These four denominations and Churches of Christ will take their vote on union in 1971. The ground work has been carefully laid. Some of our churches are to be commended in resisting the open membership .bid along with other unscriptural practises proposed for the merger.

      Australian Churches of Christ have shuffle-changed from observation to conversations with the Uniting Church of Australia in the past few years. With the merger vote to be taken in 1970 we will soon feel the pressure to move into top gear and negotiations.

      There is a lot more to our existence than simply, "unity--whatever the price." Modern denominational mergers have little to offer Churches of Christ, if the anaemic paper tiger calls the tune. The doctrines of the New Testament that make us a people are far more important than union for union, numbers and power sake.

8. BILLY GRAHAM AGAIN

A.C., 1967, Sept. 16, pp. 12-13.

      Because of the needs of the world, because there is a revolution in society, because there is a dynamic revelation in the evangel of Christ, it is of urgent necessity that some questions should be asked of the "personality centred" mass crusades. The discussion can be best outlined by an understanding of three aspects of such crusades, and in particular the forthcoming Billy Graham Crusades; the evangelist, his methods and finally his message.

The Man

      There can be little doubt that the proposed return of Billy Graham poses genuine problems for many within the Christian community. One of the most difficult is that of profound respect and admiration for Mr. Graham as a person, and a dislike of his methods, and an honest doubt of the gospel he preaches. It needs to be clearly stated that any attempt at an evaluation of Mr. Graham's crusades, recognises his sincerity and commitment and must not be construed as a personal attack upon a fellow Christian.

The Methods

      There are many who have doubts regarding the methods used by the very efficient Billy Graham Organisation, but who are persuaded that, as it "wins souls for Christ" then they should remain silent. Nevertheless, when a man adopts such an attitude he is in danger of losing his integrity. Associated with the methods of mass crusades are three concepts that have received some attention overseas, but have been almost completely ignored in Australia.

      (a) The concept of engineered decisions. This is the use of a variety of methods to induce a "decision making" atmosphere. The process of physiological group excitation--mass singing, obedience to commands to sit, stand, sing, move, pray--is but one of the processes that are exploited in developing this atmosphere. The pressures are intensified by "the winning friendliness of genial master of ceremonies, Cliff Barrows, the mellow richness of George Beverly Shea's simple moving hymns, the dexterous brilliance of Ted Smith's music, the flowing cadences of the fervent Scandinavian hymn 'How Great Thou Art.'" ("Light Beneath the Cross." S. Barton Babbage and Ian Siggins).

      We urgently need the assistance of the psychiatrist, the sociologist and the skilled counsellor, to help us discover what happens to individuals caught up in the mass excitement of crusades. For example,

can the psychological processes of the mass meetings of the Hitler Youth movement, and the Red Guards, be compared with the Billy Graham Crusades?

      (b) The Concept of a vast personality cult. "The British Weekly" (March 19, 1964) in an editorial stated, "It is one of the hardships of life that the contribution of a leader is so often distorted and destroyed by supporters of less calibre and less controlled enthusiasm." In the previously quoted "Light Beneath the Cross"--The Story of Billy Graham's Crusades in Australia, vestiges of a personality cult are clearly indicated. During the last crusade in Australia, "Photographs of Billy Graham preaching, Billy Graham drinking tea with the Governor, Billy Graham swimming, Billy Graham playing Golf, Billy Graham nursing a koala bear . . ." ("Light Beneath the Cross") were the worship symbols of many a loyal adherent.

      While it may be admitted that Mr. Graham cannot be held personally responsible for all the excesses of his enthusiastic followers, still such books can hardly have been produced without his consent and participation.

      (c) The concept of evangelism. Reference to the only two known evaluations of the last crusades raises the question of whether the crusades can be considered as evangelistic efforts.

      (i) The Current Affairs Bulletin (Vol. 24, No. 4, 1959) concluded," . . . It seems that most of Mr. Graham's Australian hearers and most enquirers were already nominal adherents of Protestant churches and 'unbelievers' were a small minority at the meetings."

      (ii) The Committee of Evangelism of the Methodist Church states, ". . . the crusades affected predominantly those already in the church."

      It is contended that the Billy Graham crusades are not means of evangelism, but are at the best, means of revivalism.

The Message

      The above comments are peripheral when compared with the more important question of the content of the crusade preaching. Related to this are two questions that need to be resolved.

      (i) What is Biblical theology? Is it Biblical just to be quoting Bible texts or repeating, "The Bible says?"

      What of the following comment? "There is his (Graham's) bland dismissal of the findings of science . . . and recent historical research; he accepted Genesis literally and Bishop Usher's chronology of the creation of the world. To ignore the research of paleontologists like Chardin, is to be guilty of an obscurantism for which there is no excuse." (B. W., July 28, 1966). Does this obscurantism affect the kind of gospel that is preached? Does this kind of Scripture support the untenable division between sacred and secular?

      (ii) What is the Gospel? It appears that the enquirer at one of the crusades could be forgiven if he equated the Christian life with prayer, Bible study, church going, personal uprightness, and semi-good works thrown in for good measure. The gospel, as understood in the twentieth century, is meaningless and irrelevant unless it means commitment to God in the world. "The spring in your step and new song in your heart" promise of the crusade is shallow in the extreme, without the stress of the new pain that accompanies the presence of God--the pain of love and concern, the pain of seeking to identify oneself with a humanity crying from hunger, depersonalisation, poverty, napalm burns and every kind of man's inhumanity to his brother.

Conclusion

      My plea is that, as a brotherhood, we might come to discover what it means to be the church in mission in the Twentieth Century. To question whether or not the crusades as offered by the Graham Organisation are the answer to the dilemma that the church faces, is one that we must seek to answer. It is often, and probably still will be, assumed that anyone who questions the techniques and message of Mr. Graham is not interested in evangelism. Let me give the assurance that it is because a man is passionately concerned with evangelism that he must question the mass crusade movement.

      This caption was printed in bold letters on a demonstrator's placard at Earl's Court, London, in 1966! Since that time the critics have been as busy as ever with charges of "Sanctified lies;" "Pressures of group excitation;" "Graham is psychologically sick;" "Calculated manipulation of emotions and mass response;" "Vast personality cult;" etc., etc.

      Some of these have appeared in the "British Weekly" and are endorsed in A. J. Matheson's adamant and presumptuous "No" to Bill Graham.

      My "billy boils" when I read this sort of irresponsible and rash generalisations, overstatements and innuendoes from quotations. The mouthing of slick and catchy phrases of overseas journalists sounds good, but it does not readily convince.

      However, the questions asked are both pertinent and timely, for one cannot be an uncritical observer of the techniques and results of mass evangelism. Yet, it is far too easy and glib to dismiss the contribution being made to the Kingdom of God by a man whose life and integrity are without question.

      This is a plea for the tolerance and acceptance of the varying ministries of the gospel, believing that each has a contribution to make, even though, as Graham admits, "the evangelist has a limited function." For the church to dismiss utterly the concept of mass evangelism is to deny the experience of history, let alone ignore the many attempts to use mass media to reach the unchurched.

Billy Graham HAS Message for Many

      To deny this is to be completely unrealistic. Very few preachers have a message for all people all the time! The Sanhedrin scoffed at the message of "ignorant men," yet the Book of Acts records many who found a new life in Christ through that message. Paul found difficulty at Athens where the intellectuals called him a "babbler" and scorned his message.

      Yet, in past days the message of Paul has been the motivation for reformers of the Wesley, Luther calibre. Where is the man who appeals to all classes of people in every situation? Is there a local minister who preaches a faultless message week by week, in which all are fed? We may not agree with all Graham's theology; his limited version of salvation; his interpretation of some passages of scripture; however, we do need to accept the Christ whom he seeks to proclaim.

      Here, at least, most of his critics agree, that he does preach the basic core of the gospel. In his day, Paul was concerned that some preached Christ out of partisanship, yet in the fact that Christ was proclaimed, Paul rejoiced.

      I believe there are many who, despite the limitations of mass evangelism, will rejoice with Paul that Mr. Graham does proclaim the risen Christ to a world which is searching for an answer to its confusion.

Results DO Speak!

      Forget about the statistical figures, but the changed lives of people cannot be dismissed. There are too many voices throughout the world who relate their roles as missionaries, social workers, ministers, etc., to a commitment made to Christ and his world through a crusade.

      Leighton Ford featured four speakers in a recent three-week Crusade in Seattle "whose Christian faith propelled them into social service." One told of the impetus given him by the Crusade to start "Job Therapy," an employment agency for ex-convicts; another told of a young prisoner he sponsors; another spoke of the Neighbourhood House Tutorial Programme aimed at low income families. (See "Christianity Today.").

      At the London 1966 Crusade, "74 clergymen and 42 men and women in training at theological or missionary colleges sent in their names as converts of past crusades." (Crusade 1966, Stoughton and Hodder). Throughout our own Australian brotherhood, I have met many who are what they are and doing what they do because of the 1959 Crusade.

Commitment to Christ DOES Mean Commitment to the World

      For many people, commitment to Christ does mean commitment to the world. Mr. Matheson suggests that "the enquirer at one of the crusades could be forgiven if he equated the Christian life with prayer, Bible study, church-going, personal uprightness and some good works thrown in for good measure." Besides being an absurd overstatement, why does Mr. Matheson leave out the rest of the quotation taken from Brian Cooper? ("British Weekly," 21/7/1966). Before Cooper goes on to speak of the necessary commitment to the world he inserts, "all these are very necessary, of course."

      Why does Mr. Matheson mouth only some of the hallowed terms of another critic? Is he afraid of prayer, Bible study, etc.? I do not object to criticism, for the questions are valid, but one has to be careful lest, in seeing the chip in the eye, he fails to see the block in his own.

      Many within the church may be pietistic, introverted and limited in their concept of salvation, but it is staggering to find many conservative Christians throughout our brotherhood who use their resources in prayer, Bible study, etc., to render invaluable service to the many worlds in which they serve.

      Graham cannot be the whole answer in involving people in their commitment to the world, but he helps many to begin. The Bishop of Woolwich, and Harvey Cox, of the "new reformation" theologians, only have a part of the answer also.

      The "spring in your step and new song in your heart" of the crusades can be a shallow concept without the pain of love and concern for man in his lostness. But why throw out the "new song?" The Book of Acts is full of "the spring in the step" . . . and at the point of conversion. John Wesley wrote in his Journal that "his heart was strangely warmed;" as a result of his life and witness many hundreds of people marched out into the world to initiate profound social reforms.

      Someone has said that behind every motion there is a corresponding emotion. I suspect that for a great many Christians the point of their initial commitment to Christ was one of confused motives; lacking knowledge of the full implications and yet, touched with "the spring in the step," I, for one, hope this will always be so.

      I do not agree with Mr. Matheson's premise that the brotherhood has to question whether or not the Graham Crusades are the answer to the dilemma of the church. No particular method of evangelism has the whole answer. Graham is only one man amongst many who are still only part of the answer.

      The question each local congregation should ask is, "Can we use the Graham Crusade in our mission of reconciling men to God through Jesus Christ?" I do not question Mr. Matheson's concern for evangelism, but contend that he needs Graham as much as Graham needs him.

9. "IN CONVERSATION" WITH THE UNITING CHURCH

Report of the Department of Christian Union in Churches of Christ in Australia, 32nd

      Federal Conference in 1966 overwhelmingly agreed that Churches of Christ should continue "in conversation" with the three negotiating churches (Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational), To overcome misunderstanding, the motion explicitly stated that "by conversation is meant observation and exchange of views, not formal negotiation."

      It is evident that there will be some changes in the proposed basis of union. (The Presbyterian church, for example, has voted for the deletion of all references to bishops). Redrafting is now proceeding. When the revised basis is published, probably in about a year's time, Churches of Christ will need to examine it and continue our conversations in relationship to the revised basis. It is important that discussion within our churches should be well informed and up-to-date. We are concerned that sometimes inaccurate statements about the proposed basis have been made which have implanted prejudices in the minds of people before the facts are examined.

      It is important to note that the uniting churches do not feel that it is advisable at this stage for the Anglican Church in Australia to be invited to become full participants in the union discussions. The Anglican Church, like ourselves, remains as an observer.

      We believe that Churches of Christ must continue to face the issues raised in these negotiations, for our Christian brethren are seeking to discover the will of God as revealed in His Word. We would be failing in our obedience if we do not give this matter our urgent attention. Yet we also feel that there must be much sharing and growing together within our Movement before we can consider negotiations. We need patience as well as a sense of urgency.

10. CONSULTATION ON UNION

A.C., 1968, p. 83.

      During the Australia Day holiday weekend (Jan. 26-29) representatives of Home Mission Departments, State Conference Executives, and Christian Union Departments and Committees from all States and the A.C.T. met together for a Federal Consultation on Christian Union at Woolwich Bible College, N.S.W. Delegates were: N.S.W. C.E. Bowser, C.L. McKenzie, O. Wainwright, H.M. Long; QLD.--

McK. Surtees, M. H. A. Pieper; W.A.--G. Powell, J.H. Western, K.J. Patterson, D.G. Hammer; S.A.--C. L. Smith, C. H. J. Wright, K. D. Home, I. J. Chivell; Tas.--C. J. Robinson; A.C.T.--G. R. Stirling; Vic.--Principal E. L. Williams, Dr. K. Bowes, D. H. Smith, W. W. Saunders.

      The Consultation Secretary was C. H. Dow from S.A., and B. Dowsett from Vic. was Minute Secretary.

      Under the Chairmanship of D. J. Verco of N.S.W., the consultants sought to discover the mind of our Australian Brotherhood on many of the complex issues associated with the quest for Christian unity.

      All delegates were in agreement that the consultation led to a growth in understanding and did much to bring our Australian Brotherhood closer together.

      The following report of the discussions is published with the consent of all consultants:

      "1. During the Consultation it was revealed that there are many areas in which there is agreement. For example:

      a. The discussion on the Biblical Nature of Christian Unity brought the Conference to the point where it could say: 'We believe that Christian Unity in truth and love is the will of God. We accept that God, in Christ, has granted unity as a gift; that this unity expresses itself in visible form according to the authority of Scripture; that it requires a measure of uniformity and also a measure of diversity; but the unity we seek is no mere merger of organisations.'

      This Conference therefore urges the Brotherhood to continue its plea for the visible unity of the Body of Christ according to the Scriptures, as being the will of God for the Church.

      b. On the question of authority in relation to Christian Unity the Conference agreed that for Christians the Scriptures are final in their authority in that they reveal to us the mind of Christ in matters of faith and practice.

      c. We acknowledge that there is a problem of interpretation, and it is commended that we seek, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in conversation with Christians of varying backgrounds and traditions, what the Scriptures have to say about God's will for us today.

      d. We recognise that members of Churches of Christ moving to areas where we do not have congregations may need to find fellowship m other communions. We urge that they be encouraged to maintain the witness of Churches of Christ while sharing as fully as possible in the life and worship of these communions.

      e. We suggest that Churches of Christ continue conversations at all levels with other communions (including the Uniting Church in Australia) concerning the means by which the Body of Christ may be given its proper visible expression of unity in the world. (By conversations we do not mean negotiations).

      2. The Consultants faced the fact that there were areas in which no agreement was reached, and other areas in which there is urgent need for further examination of attitudes.

      a. Of the former, Conference was exercised by the question of our relationship to members of other communions who differ from us on some significant matters of faith and practice. This raises the question of the basis of our acceptance of their membership in the Body of Christ.

      b. i. Of the areas that require further discussion there is the whole question of worship and our purpose in it. While the Scriptures give us guidelines in the elements of worship, they give us no specific order of service and our churches have no common pattern. We therefore require further consideration of our attitudes towards forms of worship of other communions, and of the divergent forms within our own brotherhood.

      ii. Further consideration should be given also to our attitude towards the ministry of other communions as selected or ordained by them, but which may or may not be acceptable to Churches of Christ. More thought should be devoted to the significance of the "lay ministry" and of our understanding of it in relation to the Priesthood of Believers.

      3. The Conference recommended to the Federal Department of Christian Union that a further Consultation be held, in which papers relating to the Faith of the Church should be studied in the light of Scripture, with a view to promoting this study throughout the Brotherhood."

--B. Dowsett.      

A.C., 1968, p. 197.

To the Editor,

      I am in sympathy with my friend Alan Cant in his impatience for early negotiations in order to implement our plea for Christian Union ("A.C.," 23/3/68). However, as he was not at the Consultation of brotherhood leaders he cannot know the full story behind the report ("A.C.," 24.2.68).

      The report simply means that it be recommended to the churches that conversations with the Uniting Churches of Australia continue at this state, rather than full negotiations. The recommendation recognises that whether we like it or not, we are not ready as a brotherhood for negotiations, yet. It also recognises the fact that the Uniting Churches of Australia do not want negotiations with us or any one else at this stage, preferring to consummate their own union first.

      The Consultation on Christian Union revealed that there were substantial differences amongst the representatives and throughout the brotherhood. These differences are not due to obscurantism on the one hand nor irresponsibility on the other. Rather they are the result of honestly held convictions of the nature of "here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God!" It was important for the Consultation to recognise the depth of these differences within the brotherhood, as represented by delegates of no mean scholarship from all States, who at the same time are unswerving in their loyalty to the Word of God and to our plea and witness as a people.

      However the Consultation did make positive progress. We saw that one another's honestly held convictions had been arrived at through diligent thought and study, often with agony and sweat. We saw that these differences are probably irreconcilable. We accepted the fact that none had a monopoly of loyalty to the plea, to the Word of God, to New Testament Christianity or to truth. I believe that we learned to accept and trust one another and to respect one another's honestly held convictions.

      Before we can negotiate as a people with other bodies, we must accept the fact that while there are large areas of agreement amongst us there are also irreconcilable differences. We must learn to accept these differences in love and trust and respect for one another. We must cease accusing those who differ from us of being obscurantist, irrelevant, frightened, or of being disloyal to the plea or to the scriptures, or to the witness of Churches of Christ.

      We will be ready to negotiate when we can come to the conference table, not with a "majority statement" of what is supposed to be the "position of Churches of Christ," but rather when we come with others to seek from the scriptures, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what is the mind of Christ for the church in this age. We will become increasingly willing to do this as we learn to respect the honestly held convictions of others in love, and as we thus manifest within our own brotherhood something of the unity for which Christ prayed.

      But even if such negotiations were successful, they would not mean that we had achieved uniformity of belief nor the elimination of differences. It would simply mean that in love and mutual respect for one another's convictions, we had been able to find an organic unity that would encourage the world to believe that God had sent Christ.

--G. R. Stirling (A.C.T.).      

The Pamphlet Club, April, 1970, No. 180.

      At the Christian Union Consultation held in Sydney in January, 1968, it was felt that too often when discussions are held on Christian Unity attention tends to be centred on our differences and directed away from our agreements. As a result, the Second Consultation in Melbourne in August, 1969, addressed itself to the topic: "What Churches of Christ in Australia can say together."

      Five persons, from different States, prepared papers. These, together with written responses by others, were circulated to all participants prior to the Consultation. The 20 delegates, representing Christian Union Departments and Conference Executives in each State, then set to work to produce the statement that is contained in this pamphlet.

      The Chairman of the Consultation was the President of Federal Conference, Mr. S.R. Beck. The statement is not intended as a "creed." It is printed (together with suggested questions for discussion and selected Biblical references) to encourage the whole brotherhood to look together again at the fundamentals of our faith. Any response to the statement will be appreciated by the Federal Department of Christian Union.

      1. Jesus Christ is the Living and Supreme Word of God. The Scriptures (both the Old and New Testaments) are the Word of God in that they are the inspired record of what God did and said, particularly in Jesus Christ, and in that they are God's means of revealing Himself and His purposes to mankind. The Scriptures are particularly the Word of God to those who are obedient to what God is saying and co-operative in what God is doing.

      2. The Scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. By this is meant that God took the initiative to give His message through chosen men, using their personalities and experiences by the guidance of His Spirit. As with the apostolic church, so the church throughout the ages has found the Scriptures to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

      3. The New Testament is authoritative for the church, in that the church is able to discover from it for each generation what is the mind of Christ for the church's faith and practice, ministry and mission, worship and life. Belief in the authority of the New Testament implies the acceptance of the authority of Christ, as revealed in the New Testament, in the life of the believer.

      4. The New Testament is the adequate and necessary basis for the unity of the Body of Christ. That unity will grow, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, insofar as an increasing number of Christians seek together in reverent humility, faith and love, to discover from the New Testament the mind and will of Christ for the church's faith and worship, life, mission and ministry.

      5. The Scriptures must be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to both the individual and to the whole church. Such interpretation must be made in the light of the whole of the Scriptures, recognising the finality of Christ as known in the New Testament. Due account should also be taken of common Christian experience and of accepted rules of interpretation.

      6. While the church must proclaim the great teaching of the faith already declared in the Scriptures, yet within its life it must also allow for differences of expression and interpretation on other matters. In the spirit of love and understanding there needs to be free discussion of differing interpretations. All who seek together truth under the guidance of the Spirit will find fresh light breaking through from the Word of God.

      7. Churches of Christ do not agree with the codifying of a majority or sectional consensus of interpretation into a creedal statement which is used as a test of fellowship, whether that creedal statement be written and officially accepted or unwritten and traditionally held.

For Discussion:

      1. In paragraph 1, the Word of God is described in several ways. What does each point add to our understanding? (John 1:1, 14:2 Timothy 3:14-17; Revelation 22:18-19).

      2. "The New Testament is authoritative for the church." Discuss in what ways this is so, and compare your comments with those in paragraph 3. What place has the Old Testament in the church?

      3. In what ways does the Holy Spirit help us to interpret the Scriptures? What is being stressed in the phrase "to both the individual and to the whole Church" in paragraph 5? Read also 1 Corinthians 2:11-16; John 5:39-40 and 2 Peter 3:14-18.

      1. There is one living and true God (known through Father, Son and Holy Spirit) everlasting, of infinite power, wisdom, goodness, holiness and love.

      2. He is the creator and sustainer of all things and in His loving kindness He continues to take the initiative in creating and re-creating.

      3. He is the one self-existent spirit, of whom we can form no adequate conception by our own wisdom, though He has not left Himself without witness in history, nature and human experience.

      4. He reveals Himself in His character, perfection, purposes and will by what He says and does in history, particularly as witnessed by the Scriptures.

      5. He reveals Himself finally and completely in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, His only begotten Son, born of a virgin, the Word made flesh. Him He has declared to be both Lord and Christ, the Saviour of the world.

      6. Though Jesus Christ is God's full and final word to man, the presence and witness of God has been manifested and continues with us in the person of the Holy Spirit.

      7. The power and presence of the Spirit is the possession of all Christians as a result of a personal and corporate response to God, which expresses itself in faith and obedience to Jesus Christ.

For Discussion:

      1. How do we know God? What do we mean by knowing Him? Is there still a sense of mystery about God even when we know Him? (Isaiah 6:1-5; John 1:14-18; 1 John 2:3-6).

      2. "He reveals Himself fully and completely in . . . Jesus of Nazareth." Examine each phrase used concerning Jesus in paragraph 5 ("life," "death" etc.) and state its importance for a full appreciation of the person of Jesus. (Matthew 16:13-20; 1 John 4:1-3).

      3. Is God still revealing Himself? If so, how? (John 14:26; Acts 1:1).

      1. The Good News of the Christian revelation is the salvation of man through the work of Jesus Christ. To understand the implications of this statement, it is necessary to state the nature and the condition of man which gives rise to the necessity for this salvation.

      2. (1) Man is part of God's creation, made in the image of God, created body-soul-spirit, possessing spiritual and moral capacity. Man was made by God in love, for love, through which love he was intended to establish relationships of love between himself land God, himself and man, himself and creation, and to sustain such relationships. Biblical witness and the experience of the race is that man has failed in this. By his choice he has acted contrary to God's will, resulting in the condition referred to as sin.

      (2) The condition of man is referred to as that of being "a sinner." Sin is described in two ways:--

      a. As a state which describes the fundamental and radical nature of the rupture of relationships between God and man. Man is lost, separated from God. This lostness or separation has to do with man's choice to live apart from God.

      b. As separate attitudes, acts and relationships. Man as a sinner commits sin. The Bible variously describes these actions by such phrases as "missing the way" and "falling short of the target."

      (3) The consequences of sin are--

      a. Separation from God; present and future judgment.

      b. The paradox of man's powers and his failure to achieve his goals.

      c. The alienation of man from society and the world.

      3. (1) Salvation is centred upon the unique historic events of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In these events God declares His grace towards sinful man, His participation in, and the ground by which His work of grace proceeds. In the proclamation of the gospel this grace of God is set forth to men, together with the means of the appropriation of this grace.

      (2) Through the work of the Cross God establishes His claim upon all men. Man is inevitably involved in a response to the claim of God; this response may be in the order of either salvation-faith or rejection.

      (3) Salvation is both an event and a continuing process in the life of man. God initiates in response to salvation-faith a new relationship with man. This new relationship involves God in the activities of forgiveness, redemption, justification, reconciliation and sanctification. These activities all have past, present and future aspects.

      (4) The salvation work of God is met by man through a faith response. Man responds to God by faith which finds expression through repentance, confession, baptism and the holy life.

      (5) By the work of salvation God invites man to participate in His purposes through a new order of life. This new life is described as "Christ in us" and as "new creation." It is the life of the Holy Spirit in man. By this life man fulfils God's original purpose and his life expresses the mission of God in the world. In this new relationship man becomes part of God's eternal purpose which will be consummated at the end of the age.

For Discussion:

      1. What is meant by the term salvation? (Romans 5:6-11; 6:1-4, 20-23).

      2. Discuss the essence of sin. In doing so, consider the sentence "Man as a sinner commits sin" in paragraph 2 (2) b. Do we take a serious enough view of sin? (Genesis 3:1-19; 1 John 3:4-10).

      3. "Salvation is centred upon the unique historic events of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ." Do we tend to put more emphasis on some of these elements than on others? Should we? (See paragraph 3 (1), (2), (3) and Mark 10:45; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Philippians 2:5-11; Ephesians 2:14-22).

      1. (1) The church is all those persons who locally and universally, visibly and corporately express through a common faith the lordship and saviourhood of Christ, and express His life and mission in the world.

      (2) Acknowledging Christ as the founder and Lord, they identify themselves to each other and to the world by a common fellowship, life and rule, worship and mission.

      (3) The church is a community composed of many communities and responsible to each other and to the whole church.

      (4) The nature of this relation to Christ is declared by such Biblical metaphors as body, bride, temple, Israel of God, people of God, fellowship in faith, and the new creation.

      2. (1) Mission. The mission of the church is to proclaim the gospel, to make disciples, to equip Christ's followers for the ministry of reconciliation, to express the love of God in all relationships (individual and corporate) and to serve the needs of mankind.

      (2) Ministry. Within the total ministry of the church there are specialised ministries for men and women which may vary in respect to function, training and vocation; such ministries are determined by the gifts and call of the Holy Spirit, and recognition by the church. Some of these may be called "ministers" in a special sense. Ministry belongs to the whole people of God. Every member of God's Church is called to be His minister within the church and to the world.

      3. (1) Worship. The church in corporate worship is presenting and offering herself to God in the name of Jesus Christ her Lord, in response to what He has done in the glorious gospel, to what He is doing, and to what He has promised to do. The elements of worship are thanksgiving, praise, adoration, contrition, confession, contemplation and communion. These may be expressed in acts of worship such as hymn, psalm, reading, prayer, sacrament, fellowship and teaching.

      (2) Sacraments.

      a. Baptism. Christian baptism is the incorporation of the penitent believer into Christ and into His body, the church, by immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

      It is an embodiment of the gospel, and a solemn expression of it in a single act. It is a monumental and commemorative institution, proclaiming to all ages the great facts of man's redemption as developed and consummated in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism into Christ is both a "sign" and a "seal" of the remission of all former sins. In this sense only does "baptism now save us." It is more than a physical act: it is the acceptance through faith of God's gift of life given in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This faith is expressed in the "sign" of baptism, which is a death to sin and a rising to walk in newness of life, indicated by an immersion in water and an emersion out of it.

      Baptism, then, is not to be thought of in isolation. It is related to the spiritual experience of conversion and to faith, without which it is meaningless, and thus to the church as the body of those who have made a response to Christ.

      Baptism also carries with it the obligation to serve Christ and the church in and for the world.

      b. Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is that corporate act wherein the church in a faith-response participates in the body and blood of Christ, thus sharing in His life, death and resurrection.

      The Lord's Supper is a thanksgiving, a commemoration, a communion, and a declaration of the death, resurrection and coming again of Christ. The Lord's Supper is an act that we observe each first day of the week as the sign of Christ's continuing presence with His covenant people. The Lord's Supper feeds the people of God so that they grow up together into Christ and are strengthened for their participation in the mission of Christ in and to the world.

For Discussion:

      1. How is each Christian to be involved in the ministry of the church? What is the role of specialised ministries in the church? (Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Ephesians 4:11-16).

      2. Baptism is described as being much more than an outward act of immersion in water (paragraph 3 (2) (a). What is baptism? How much instruction is needed before immersion in water for it to be a meaningful act? (Romans 6:1-4; 1 Peter 3:18-22).

      3. Read 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:17-34. How many of the emphases in paragraph 3 (2) (b) are found in these two passages? Do we give adequate emphasis in the Lord's Supper both to fellowship with Christ and fellowship with each other?

      1. Our God is a God of hope. The hope of a Christian is founded in the nature of God, He who is love and He who alone has immortality. This hope, in the Biblical sense, is a confident expectation.

      2. In Jesus Christ, God has revealed His purpose that all men should respond to Him and live in filial relationships with Him. The Christian hope lies in the knowledge that God is faithful to fulfil His purpose.

      3. In the resurrection of Christ the Christian has the guarantee of eternal life.

      4. By faith a believer may enter into this living hope, and experience it in a definite way in this life. Baptism into Christ expresses this. Through the power of God's Spirit, the hope of victory over sin and circumstances can be known. Hope is one of the elements in the unity of the Spirit.

      5. The Lord's Supper also expresses the various dimensions of the Christian hope. In the Supper, we are linked again with the act of God in Christ, we recognise afresh that Christ will finally bring His kingdom to completion, and we offer ourselves to be used in His ministry of reconciliation to the nations.

      6. The death of one who is "in Christ" does not destroy the relationship between God land himself. He is still "with Christ." The power of death does not prevail against the church. Death is robbed of its sting both in personal fear and sorrow for those who die in Christ.

      7. While a Christian begins to experience eternal life at conversion, yet through the Spirit he waits for the "hope of righteousness." In the return of Christ the Father expresses His ultimate victory over sin.

      8. This climactic event demonstrates the royal victory of Christ ("parousia") it will be the revelation of Him to all men ("apokalupsis") and God will be shown for what He truly is ("epiphaneia").

      9. Concerning the time of the End the believer has no clear knowledge except that it is in the Father's hands. The believer's responsibility is to be ready for it. True preparation is to offer continually to God the worship that is due to him, through words, life and ministry.

      10. Through a transforming act of God both those who are alive at the time, and those who have died will share in the final advent of Christ. The relationship between existence beyond death and the final resurrection is nowhere spelt out in the New Testament. That there will be a dramatic change for all is clear. It is also clear that there will be some continuity of the "person" expressed in an appropriate form ("a spiritual body").

      11. Just as in the present life, relationship with Christ involves relationships with His body, the church, so the final Advent, the life of the "person" will not be an individualistic matter, but is constituted by His relationship with God and thus with others who share in the event.

      12. The final Advent is not just the end of history, it is to some degree also the climax of history. The whole Bible throbs with the idea of purpose, both in nature and in history. The whole creation moves towards this divine event. The Kingdom of God appeared in our midst with the coming of Jesus Christ, in anticipation of the day when all things will be brought into subjection to Him. Then at the final advent, the Lord of history shall be manifest as the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

For Discussion:

      1. "The Christian hope is founded in the nature of God" (paragraph 1). Are there any other grounds for the hope of immortality, and if so, how are they related to this one? (1 Timothy 6:16; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 42-50; John 11:25-26; 14:1-6).

      2. Baptism and the Lord's supper are described as expressing the Christian hope (paragraphs 4-5). Do we commonly stress this aspect? (Romans 6:4-5; 1 Corinthians 11:26).

      3. The return of Christ is a belief all Christians hold in common. How can we make this New Testament article of our faith more prominent and more helpful in our witness without pressing particular interpretations of it? (See paragraph 9).

      Now that you have studied the whole statement, share your ideas on these questions:--

      1. Do you feel the Statement reflects a unity in essentials?

      2. Do you feel that this was an important and helpful statement?

      3. What can be done to help the Brotherhood to search together for the will of God in our day?

      4. What comments should we forward to the Federal Department of Christian Union?

      5. Address all correspondence on the subject matter of this pamphlet to:

      The Secretary, Federal Department of Christian Union, 246 Highfield Road, Burwood, Victoria. 3125.

[NOF 582-609]