Reflection on the plea during the years 1970-1990 will focus on continuing self-analysis and on future projections.

      Additional material includes: C.A. Lawn, Are We The New Testament Church, The Pamphlet Club, Sept, 1968, No. 161; G.R. Stirling, An Ongoing Christian Movement, The Pamphlet Club, Nov. 1968, No. 165-164: A. H. Walkington, The Problems We Face as a People, The Pamphlet Club, May 1973, No. 217; K. J. Patterson, The Witness of Churches of Christ in this Ecumenical Age, The Pamphlet Club, October 1974, No. 234; D. H. Smith, Directions: Some Thoughts on Churches of Christ in Australia, Past, Present and Future, Nov. 1976, No. 256; D. H. Smith, Identity and Meaning: An Exploration of Issues Concerning the Future Role of Churches of Christ in Australia, The Pamphlet Club, June 1978, No. 272.

      Three recent publications, exploring the traditions and future of Churches of Christ, have been: K. W. Farmer, Ministry and Church--Restoration or Ruin, The Pamphlet Club, No. 363, June, 1989; W. Tabbernee, Turning the World Upside Down Through a Contemporary Reformation, The Pamphlet Club, No. 362, Dec. 1988; Graeme Chapman, What Churches of Christ Can Say Together, Pamphlet Club, No. 372, December, 1990 [ a re-write of an earlier consensus statement]

1. Self-Analysis
2. The Future

1. SELF-ANALYSIS

A.C., 1974, p. 458.

      Churches of Christ have been in existence in Australia for almost 140 years. A review of the movement's literature highlights the fact that we have twice fallen into a mood of sustained

self-criticism. In the final quarter of last century, when it was no longer necessary to fight for existence and identity, we began working our way towards an acceptance of and by other communions. Opening ourselves to others exposed us to the challenge of foreign and sometimes rival doctrines and forced upon us a review of inherited Restoration traditions. The second period of self-criticism began emerging as a trend in the late 60's. This time attention was concentrated on the question of unity. When the promise of an early enthusiasm not only failed to materialize but had the contrary effect of revealing the existence within the movement of considerable theological divergency, concerned leaders began seeking reasons.

      The most perceptive of the critics of the earlier period was the American evangelist J. J. Haley. As early as 1876, the year he was appointed editor of the Australian Christian Pioneer, he called attention to "Our Danger." He wrote--"We advocate union in the spirit of disunion . . . we fancy ourselves champions of the Restoration of Primitive Christianity, when all the while our championship is decidedly more effective in the restoration of primitive Pharisaism." He went on to point out that we were in danger of formulating a creed, under the animus of sectarianism, that would not allow for variance of opinion.

      Prominent among recent critics have been Dr. Ron Graham, who has pointed up hidden ambiguities in cherished catch-phrases, and the provocatively irenic Gordon Stirling, whose probing into the differences dividing the main currents of the movement has stimulated enthusiasm for a deeper analysis.

      To date, attention has been concentrated on assessment of the philosophic and historical implications of our doctrinal position. It is my personal conviction that, to ensure the future vigour of our churches and to enable us to make an adequate response to the ever accelerating flow and complexity of world trends, it is essential that we go beyond this looking at implications to re-weigh the truth and relevance of the varied and pseudo-sacred facets of our position.

      Equally unsuited to effective analysis are those blindly infatuated with what is being assessed and outside critics who, without appreciating the inside view, offer profuse advice on how the needed reformation can be made. My position is that of insider--like you I love our brotherhood. However, in the offering of varied analyses in the articles that follow I hope that historical perspective has given me the necessary objectivity to offer revealing and positive criticism. I do not claim to have the answers but hope to stimulate those whose discussion of the issues can contribute to the needed reappraisal.

      Some time ago Dr. W. E. Sangster raised the question "Can Methodism be born again?" When it came to publication the title had been changed to "Methodism can be born again." I have no less confidence in the rebirth of the people who prefer, without claiming exclusive use of the term, to call themselves simply "Christians."

A.C., 1974, pp. 488, 494.

      Those involved during the 40's, 50's and early 60's in promoting Christian unity, laid heavy emphasis on the scandal of division. Today the outsider is not so much scandalized as wryly amused by the existence of competing denominations. For the life of him he cannot see why, in this era of toleration, the churches prefer to remain separate. Perhaps this is another area inviting Kissinger's attention! However, while it is obvious to us that those unaffiliated with the churches fail to appreciate the basic theological differences perpetuating division, we, on the inside can't claim to be any less ignorant of the effect upon ourselves of an uncritical acceptance of the traditions of our fathers.

      Throughout the course of history new churches have emerged largely as a result of protest over false doctrine, the neglect of certain dogmas, and the lack of enthusiasm for evangelism and social

concern. The personal and political ambitions and predilections of rulers have also played their part. When finding their way, new sects have had to improvise guidelines. A combination of sociological, scriptural, and sometimes political factors have contributed to their formulation. In the course of time these axioms achieve the status of law--divine law! In short, they are worshipped. But this is a dangerous idolatry!

      It is dangerous because it leads to our refusal to admit to realities.

      In the early years we decried the sectarianism of the "denominations" "Denomination" was a word we used to describe those religious bodies of the Christian tradition who used unscriptural names to describe themselves and their practices--which in effect described everyone else but ourselves, or so we thought. As such names divided, those using them were charged with sectarianism. While the use of scriptural names would help to make evident already existing areas of unity presently camouflaged by confusing terminology, our pioneers are seen, in retrospect, to have been overconfident in imagining that the use of scriptural names would considerably contribute to the development of Christian unity. Nor were they able to see that frequently their own attitudes, particularly the exclusive claim that they were alone right, developed a sectarianism more marked than that of the "denominations."

      According to the commonly accepted definition of the word, we are today very much a denomination. Sociologically it can be shown that we have, in the course of our history, developed from a sect to a denomination. To refuse to admit to this, which some out of loyalty to tradition continue to do, is to purposely deny reality--an action fraught with danger.

      The worship of traditional cliches has the further effect of restricting inquiry.

      Recognising that creeds were responsible for much of the division within the church, our pioneers refused to formulate one. They claimed that nothing should be required of prospective Christians, by way of doctrinal statement, than the Caesarean profession of Peter, i. e., that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God. While commendable, this action had the effect of restricting, if not inquiry, then publication of studied doctrinal statements. Everyone was afraid of being criticised for formulating a creed. For similar reasons theology was proscribed. It is little wonder that there has been a lack of doctrinal and theological statement within a movement that has boasted men of considerable intellectual ability who could have significantly contributed to biblical and theological inquiry. Ironically, the fact that our leaders have been chary of publishing little beyond elementary statements has meant that at the grass roots level we have been exposed to the influence of every wind of doctrine. Christadelphianism early plagued the Sydney and Ballarat churches and Swedenborgianism was not unknown at Newtown.

      Our reverence for the original formulations has also kept us apart from other Christian groups.

      Although most refrained from saying it in so many words, our Australian pioneers believed baptism to be essential to salvation. According to British practice the candidate was baptized following an examination by elders. Invited American evangelists later introduced the practice of inviting prospective converts to walk to the front of a meeting to signify their acceptance of Christ's offer of salvation. When, towards the end of last century, we became more accepting of other communions, i. e., we accepted them as Christians, we were forced to review our doctrine of baptism. The reformulation arrived at, expressed succinctly by A. R. Main in First Principles involved the positive proclamation of the scriptural command and the leaving to God's judgment the case of unimmersed believers. The developing ambiguity of our position was well expressed by W. Higlett, who, reporting to the New South Baptist Union in 1921 on conversations between the two groups, wrote--"Churches of Christ did not appear to regard baptism as essential to salvation, but declined to allow it to be recorded that they did not."

      It seems to me that unless we are willing to rethink traditional doctrine and to admit publicly to covert changes of attitude it will be impossible for us ever to come to closer terms with other Christian communions.

      The most damaging effect of our idolatry is that it forces us into a double-think. We claim not to be a denomination when we know that we are. We claim to have no creed when we are bound by one that is rigid and unwritten. Finally, we maintain the facade of believing doctrines to which we no longer give complete assent.

      I am not insinuating that we should throw away traditional emphases--far from it. Rather it is my intention to get you thinking about their reformulation. They need to be reinterpreted at a deeper level of sophistication, allowing for the breaking in of new biblical and experiential insight. Only then will we regain our former strength and find ourselves equipped to exploit today's opportunities.

A.C., 1974, p. 511.

      The pattern of church government within Churches of Christ could be described as a variety of Presbyterianism shown of its church courts with allowance made for greater congregational participation. Alternatively it could be viewed as an exalted Congregationalism titivated by the addition of an elected eldership sensitively responsive to the dictates and moods of the congregation.

      At the level of co-operative endeavour, the autonomy of each local congregation is jealously guarded. An initial conflict between British and American Restoration traditions, over the advisability and precise nature of intercongregational co-operation led eventually to heavy stress being given to the evangelistic role of conferences of local churches. The thought of such bodies having legislative function was strongly repudiated.

      Early advocates insisted that the New Testament clearly revealed a pattern of church government, normative for all time, the reproduction of which in every age would ensure the Church's strength and unity. Apologists for Churches of Christ pointed out that it was to promote the restoration of such New Testament usages that they had been called into existence.

      However, by the turn of the century the beginnings of a change in terminology was evident. Men began speaking more of New Testament principles and less of the New Testament pattern of church government. This reflected a deeper theological shift brought about by exposure to other churches and the greater flexibility demanded by growth in the movement.

      Unfortunately, practice has not always matched theory. At the local level debate early raged over the precise function of elders. Writing from Newtown in 1861, Joseph Kingsbury described the church there as in a "state of suspense and agitation" because of disagreement on the question of whether elders ought to preside at every meeting of the church. As that century drew to a close the almost complete absence of an effective eldership within the churches was openly acknowledged.

      The stress at the co-operative level on the autonomy of the local church had one significant but unrecognized consequence. The lack of hierarchical structure led to the clustering of power, in each state, around prominent individuals. The influence, in the 1860's, of Service in Melbourne, Kingsbury in Sydney, and Magarey in Adelaide was evidence of this. W.T. Moore, reflecting on the American beginnings, commented--"The Disciples do not have bishops; they have editors." This, no less true of Australian Disciples, was particularly the case with A.R. Main, who, as editor of the Australian Christian from 1914 to 1941 and principal of the Australian College of the Bible from 1910 to 1938, wove his own synthesis of Restoration doctrine into the thought of the movement.

      While conferences began as purely co-operative bodies, with initiative lying with local churches, they developed in time into policy making bodies. Early alarm over the projected formation, late in the nineteenth century, of building funds, was overborne by the desire for more attractive chapels and state committees were formed for this purpose between 1905 and 1913. Of recent years, the need to co-ordinate strong and hitherto autonomous committees has led to a strengthening of central structures and the appointment of conference secretary/organisers.

      Ministry in today's tightly-wired world is complex. It demands of us a complete rethinking of our traditional view of church government. For greater internal communication and effectiveness and to reach an estranged world in which stable patterns are things of the past, we need to return to the scriptures with a willingness to recognize factors that an early rigidity caused us to overlook. The sort of questions we will need to ask ourselves are these. Does the New Testament reveal any single pattern or were there a complex of patterns that could justify congregational, presbyterian and even episcopal government? Could it be that the pattern was a pattern of flexibility? And whatever we decide was New Testament practice, is there anything in the New Testament that says that this was to be continually reproduced as the only valid form of church government? In an age when there is an increasing need to work closely with other Christian groups such probing could have results that exceed our expectation.

A.C., 1974, p. 543.

      Differing interpretations of scripture have led to division between and even within denominations. Because of an avoidance of creedal statement our pioneers found it necessary to formulate a method of ensuring both basic unity and scope for difference in the area of biblical interpretation. They laid down the rule that they would speak where the scriptures spoke and remain silent where they were silent. They further decided that on essentials there would be unity, on non essentials liberty, and in all things love. Viewed in retrospect it can be seen that early restorationists, while they avoided formulating a creed, substituted instead a set of hermeneutical principles.

      While the spirit and general intention of the principles are to be applauded, difficulties arose in the course of their application. For instance, a subtle ambiguity was found to be hiding in the folds of the former. Was the intention that nothing was to be allowed for which scriptural precedent could not be found or did lack of such precedent invite experimentation? With the second it was not always possible to agree on what were essential and what inessential items.

      During the course of our history, sharp differences of opinion have arisen on three occasions.

      British and American restoration traditions clashed in the period 1864-1875. Three broad issues were involved. In the area of ministry, a struggle over authority developed between British elders and American evangelists each accustomed to having their own way. Furthermore, the Americans were used to preaching every Sunday morning, a practice strongly opposed by the British immigrants making up the colonial congregations who jealously guarded a style of ministry that allowed those inspired by the moment to address their fellows. On the question of giving, the Britishers refused money from the unimmersed while the Americans had no such scruples, contending that if the ungodly wished to give of their substance this "by so much, subtracted from the power of Satan to do harm." The third area concerned co-operative work. While the British brethren wished to make conference decisions binding, the sturdily independent Americans were wary "of any body vested with power to control the action of churches." Unlike the British experience effective syntheses were achieved.

      In the final decades of the nineteenth century debate raged over the question of the scriptural legitimacy of certain innovations, notably Sunday Schools, Christian Endeavour Societies, and the use of organs in church services. The logic of practical necessity won the day and all were accepted.

      The third major conflict is still with us. It is concerned with the degree to which we ought to work closely with other Christian communions.

      While the Presbyterian and Congregational churches early felt the challenge of the Darwinian revolution, with its threat to Christian certainties, our relative introversion and simple biblical faith shielded us from its immediate effect. Later, the editorial influence of F.G. Dunn and A. R. Main kept at bay the widening influence of the Higher Critical approach. However, some among both preachers and

students, particularly in the 30's, frustrated at what they saw as the stifling effect of Main's heavy handed control of the movement's thinking, felt that certain beneficial insights associated with the new approach should be made available.

      Concurrently, interest was growing in the question of Christian unity, fanned by larger ecumenical initiatives. Many however, feeling that the biblical conservatism and restoration emphases of the movement were threatened by such involvement pulled back in alarm.

      The situation existing today is complex, and in each state, due to historical origins, the forces are differently aligned. Among the basic categories are those accommodating men of a conservative theology who admit to evangelical affinity. Among others of the conservative camp, and at opposite poles along a different axis, are the interdenominationalists and the "Old Paths" Restorationists. While we have few real "liberals," there are quite a number who would sternly reject the biblical literalism of the more outspoken evangelicals and yet wish to call themselves conservative. As the movement has not been willing to contain those on the extreme left wing--theological and political radicals--the line is drawn at this point. Such an analysis is obviously hopelessly inadequate but does give some indication of the complexity of the present theological infrastructure.

      It is essential that at this crucial stage in the debate a spirit of calm prevail to allow the studied and cautious investigation of the issues or pseudo-issues that divide.

      Those to the left of centre need to realize that not all evangelicals are insecure individuals whose biblical conservatism is the result of a craving for absolutes. Still less are the bulk purposely obscurantist. The group to the right of centre must beware of regarding those rejecting their more extreme views as weak, pussy-footing liberals more concerned with acceptance than truth. Let the "Conservatives" realize that there are not two but a multiplicity of attitudes on the question of biblical authority and interpretation. Let the "Liberals" recognize that unless they are reasonably aware of where their approaches are taking them the supreme values of the faith may be lost. "Restorationists" need to understand that there are different Restoration traditions all of which claim authoritative support and that in the early days of the movement in America a broad flexibility was evident.

      The supreme danger into which the Evangelical can stumble, is to see doctrinal rectitude as the index of Christian character. The opposite peril is to be so accommodating that people of good moral character are regarded as Christian merely because of that criterion irrespective of any personal faith in Christ. Surely the true measure of Christian identity and growth is the Christlikeness evident in behaviour and spontaneous witness. It is here that our real unity lies and must be cemented. Let us not be afraid of but love and cherish each other with a greater willingness to understand than criticise. A synthesis is not impossible, particularly in a movement which is basically conservative in theology, and would allow for a lively and fruitful interplay of divergent opinion.

A.C., 1984, p. 257.

      Churches of Christ refer to themselves as "The Restoration Movement." We have said that we plead for Christian unity through the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Some have talked of restoring the New Testament church. Yet the term "restoration" was seldom used during the first 80 years of our American churches. They preferred the word "Reformation" which they used constantly up to the turn of the century. Our British churches spoke of "returning to primitive Christianity" but only talked "restoration" during the twentieth century.

The Stone Campbell Movement

      These facts concerning our American churches have been clearly stated with plenty of evidence in a book that we reviewed (A.C. 3.3.84). It is "The Stone Campbell Movement" by Leroy Garrett (Joplin Press). In 1833 Alexander Campbell was seeking (in his words) "a reformation in fact, a reformation in sentiment and practice, a reformation in faith and manners." In 1847 Campbell included in his paper, "The Millennial Harbinger," a series of 19 articles on which he called the Reformation, by Robert Richardson, being studies in the history and witness of our churches. In one of the articles Richardson wrote, "This reformation was born of the love of union and Christian union has been its engrossing theme." Richardson was Alexander Campbell's biographer ("Memoirs of Alexander Campbell"),

describing his two-volume 1200 page work as "embracing a view of the origins, progress and principles of the religious reformation which Campbell advocated."

      Barton Stone, referring to Alexander Campbell, wrote "I acknowledge him to be the greatest promoter of this reformation of any man living." Leroy Garrett claims that "Campbell was pleased to be a reformer and thought of himself as being in the reformed tradition, esteeming as he did the Protestant Reformation . . . He sought to finish what Luther and Calvin had begun."

The Thesis of the Book

      Leroy Garrett plainly states the thesis of his book on page 11. "Our thesis is clearly set out in the study: Restorationism, as here--in defined, has always been divisive and always will be, and when it gained sufficient influence within the Movement it divided it."

      These are not the words of some extremist, left-wing Disciple radical. Professor Garrett is a member of a congregation association with the non-instrumental Churches of Christ whose main characteristic has been "restorationism." They have not only tried literally to restore every detail of "the New Testament pattern," but they have tried to avoid anything that is not expressly allowed in the New Testament (for example, musical instruments in worship).

      Garrett's book tells the story of 180 years of effort by the Stone Campbell Movement to reform the church and by so doing to restore its unity; and of the development within the reformation of powerful restorationist sentiments that not only frustrated both the attempts at reform and unity, but divided the Movement.

Restorationism

      Leroy Garrett points out that since the Anabaptists (16th Century) there have been hundreds of churches and sects attempting to restore the New Testament church, all of them different, most claiming to be the true church, all of them exclusive, and most of them splintering themselves into smaller sects. He insists that restorationism is fractious and "by its very nature contradicts the principle of reformation." Reformation accepts the fact that the church has existed from the beginning and is represented in the contemporary denominations, and has always been in the need of reforming in every age, including that of the New Testament (read the Corinthian letters). Restoration assumes that somewhere along the line the church, in effect, ceased to exist, becoming so apostate that it was no longer the body of Christ, hence the need for lovers of the truth to withdraw from what professes to be the church, and to restore again the New Testament church. This is the position held by many in Professor Garrett's "denomination" who think of themselves as the uniquely restored church. When their representatives in Australia commenced work in Melbourne and advertised in the press that "Christianity was coming to Melbourne" they were not meaning to be presumptuous. They really believed it.

Warring Sects

      Dr. Garrett writes, "Restorationists . . . who find in scripture a fixed pattern for the church and impose their interpretation upon others as a test of fellowship, have divided into hundreds of warring sects. Our thesis is that when exclusivity became dominant in the stone Campbell Movement, it divided it . . . The reasons for all of the divisions are the same, exclusivism, which by its very nature is fractious."

In Australia

      Churches of Christ is Australia refer to themselves as "the Restoration Movement." What do we understand by "restoration?" Do we understand it in an exclusive, legalistic and separatist way that would leave us open to the same fracturing as happened in the American Movement? We will look at these questions in the next issue.

A.C., 1984, p. 285.

      In Australia we have used the appellation "Restoration Movement" to describe ourselves. We have perhaps thought of ourselves as being unique in desiring to restore New Testament Christianity, yet

many hundreds of churches and sects round the world have set out to do that very thing. Our uniqueness has been in our claim that restoring New Testament Christianity is the way to unity. Most other restorationist bodies have been more interested in separating from other Christians rather than in fording unity with them.

Restoring the New Testament Church

      Some of our people have talked about restoring the New Testament church. Actually this is not possible for the New Testament church had the apostles and many diverse ways of operating in scattered points all round the Mediterranean. We can only be the church in our own time and culture through obedience and commitment to Christ as Lord of the church, whom we meet in the New Testament.

Restoring New Testament Christianity

      "Restoring New Testament Christianity" may well be a different thing from "restoring the New Testament church," although restorationists have used the terms interchangeably. It all depends on what we mean by New Testament Christianity and how we understand the New Testament.

      If we think of the New Testament as a book of rules for the management of the church and its faith, worship and conduct, we are making it into "law" and putting ourselves under law, when we have been set free as children of grace. If restoring New Testament Christianity means finding texts legalistically to support everything we do and to oppose everything which we do not do, we become involved in "restorationism." Restorationism is characterised by exclusivism and division because of the inevitable differences of interpretation of the "book of rules" amongst the various restorationists.

      In the extreme restorationist wing of the Stone Campbell Movement groups have separated from each other on such matters as Sunday Schools, use of real wine at the Lord's Table, pre-millennialism, and the use of individual cups, all basing their claims on either New Testament texts or New Testament silence.

Another Possibility

      Another possible understanding of the New Testament is to see it as a set of documents telling us about Jesus Christ and his church that grew up, consisting of those who believing in his resurrection, committed themselves to him as Lord and Saviour. This view does not think of the New Testament as a rule book, but rather as a source book in which we can discover the central truths about God, revealed in Christ, and how the early church took those truths to the world and how they organised their life in Christian communities, and how they applied the truths of the gospel in the life and culture of their day.

      With this view, restoring New Testament Christianity becomes a matter of all Christians together encouraging one another into total commitment to Christ as Lord and Saviour, and into using the New Testament to discover guiding principles for the life and faith and government of his church today. Such a view of restoring New Testament Christianity should not lead to fractiousness, but rather towards unity.

Reformation

      Perhaps the term "reformation," used so widely by our fathers, describes best this concept of restoring New Testament Christianity. Restorationism implies that there is no other genuine church apart from the particular group of restorers who alone have the truth and who alone are the true church.

      Reformation, on the other hand, looks at the church as consisting of all whom the Lord has added, represented in all denominations in those who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Reformation implies that this church, as always, needs reforming. Reformation implies that the New Testament gives the guidelines for reformation of the doctrines and practices of the church. But it also implies working together with all who are in the church, towards discovering the mind of Christ concerning those doctrines and practices, as revealed in the New Testament. This implies patience, understanding, love, study and conversation together, praying and working together by all christians in a situation where there are wide differences of interpretation held honestly and with great conviction.

A Concluding Word

      Eight years before he died Alexander Campbell wrote, "I have been, in my own weak and imperfect way, advocating a reformation, not so much in a doctrine, but for the advancement of the best

interests of mankind, for the honour of our Lord and Master, for the good of his people, for the union of Christians, and the conversion of the world."

2. THE FUTURE

Conference of Churches of Christ, Victoria-Tasmania, 1984.

      The concept of being a Movement has been one that has been with Churches of Christ since their beginnings. The essential idea was that of being a movement which would help to unite all Christians and bring together a divided church on the basis of restoring New Testament church life and patterns. The concept inherently conveyed a dynamic set of ideas about the reform and renewal of the church. These ideas have come down to us through a period of over 170 years of tumult and change in both church and world affairs. No reforming movement of any sort can expect a similar situation to prevail as did in the period of its origins. Many movements perish along the way as the reasons for their origins fade or their aims are achieved.

      In essence the idea of belonging to a movement is one with a great potential to challenge both leaders and followers. The concept challenges us to be open to Christians in every branch of a divided church to share our ideals and to learn from them too. In this process we shall need to be sensitive to the vast changed in world affairs, new learning and ideas which have evolved over the years. How have we changed, have others changed, have the issues changed? These are the concerns before any movement and they clearly confront Churches of Christ today. The only movement which can go forward is one with clear ideas shaped to meet contemporary needs. Our early progress reflected the significance and relevance of our ideas. The challenge before us as a people and a movement is to evaluate, explore, test, sift, weigh, and judge our ideas against our present situation and what we take to be the emerging needs of the future. Such a task calls for frankness and objectivity, it is exhilarating, demanding and always threatening.

      The concept of pilgrimage or spiritual journey is one much in vogue today at a personal level of Christian discipleship. The image springs from the Exodus where we have the Children of Israel leave the known of Egypt for their pilgrimage to the Promised Land. Between the two points there lay a great deal of experience, learning, travail, accomplishment, and agony. The image speaks to us now. It is a valid Biblical concept with which we may venture forward in the future. It allows us to understand and accept ourselves and it provides for periods of adjustment while a spirit of hope and faith burns strongly. In our context, pilgrimage means exploration of our internal life, assessment of the strategic situation before us and the encouragement of a vigorous development of our work. The tasks form a stimulating combination for any movement to grapple with. What is discussed in this report is a process which needs to continue over a period of years. The very nature of the material to be considered and the issues before us do not lend themselves to immediate solutions or recommendations which if carried out achieve some immediate goals. Neither is a small committee competent to determine the future of Churches of Christ. A committee may make suggestions and recommendations on issues, but at this point these must be seen as guidelines for future planning and thinking. They mark the setting out upon an adventure. The issues before us belong to the whole Brotherhood. It is from our corporate concern, debate and discussion that we shall fashion the future of our Movement. We go forward together on our pilgrimage.

      The climate in which this process has begun appears to be most positive. No group or party lays claim to particular solutions or perspectives. Within the Conference there is a spirit of co-operation and unity which would seem to be supportive of the processes begun here. Some of the background papers available to the Commission suggested that the situation could vary from state to state with different

perspectives to be found. The report takes particular account of the situation within this Conference. The process begun here takes place in a mood of general confidence among the churches. Our present situation could be marked by confusion, alarm or indeed pessimism about our future as a Movement. It is rather the contrary that appears. Assessing a mood of confidence is a subjective task, but the Commission members noted a number of factors and saw them as healthy signs. Statewide unity, good relationships between the churches and the Conference structures, rising attendances at Conference, support of Brotherhood programmes and projects, all suggest a positive mood. It is important to note that our founding ideals once formed a strong framework for our existence and group esteem. There is now a gradual development of new ideas and feelings which are currently proving adequate for group image, cohesion and forward development. These ideas are however more pragmatic in essence and shaped around current achievements as against the founding concepts which influenced our past so strongly. It was out of this current context that the Commission's task was formed. There is a need to reshape our heritage and founding ideals and begin to give them a contemporary perspective.

      Our origins have all the marks of the sect with a loose organisation, solidarity in common beliefs, congregational autonomy and a voluntary membership. The early leaders reacted to the state of the church and sought to effect reform and provide a frame work for Christian unity. We were an example of a reforming movement seeking to enforce a neglected value within society. With the passing of time the internal and external pressures will tend to push such groups towards a more organized form unless the group disintegrates. The new form is that of the denomination with a more highly organized structure, professional leadership, somewhat lesser demands upon membership and greater community acceptance. Although Churches of Christ show the marks of denominationalism the sectarian qualities such as the lay leadership emphasis, loose organization, strong loyalties, and adherence to reforming founding ideals are still in evidence. We are somewhere in between the two categories of sect and denomination, an established or institutionalised sect could be one way to describe Churches of Christ. Such a position should not be seen as necessarily negative as it tends to afford us the positive values of both groupings.

      This century has seen a considerable emphasis on the study of institutions and organizations within society. The life cycle concept encourages study of an organization's life acknowledging that it will pass through various phases. The phases can include foundation, expansion, stabilization, breakdown and critical periods. The latter two are to be seen as periods of transition. There is no doubt that we find ourselves within these latter categories, but taken alone the life cycle view could be quite mechanistic. The concept can help us to understand ourselves and try to invest our energies to help shape our own future. Alongside this we need the theological perspective which provides for the inbreaking of God's Spirit in the life of the church.

      Thomas and Alexander Campbell developed the ideas which have shaped Churches of Christ from their beginnings. The twin concepts of restoration and unity were the basis of the reforming ideas introduced into the American church scene of the early nineteenth century. The challenge before Churches of Christ now is to continue to evaluate these ideas for our day. Thomas Campbell was deeply concerned over a fragmented and at times bitterly divided church. He advocated the forsaking of denominational peculiarities and uniting on the basis of a common acceptance of the simple beliefs and practices of the New Testament church. The unity of the church would be manifested by the restoration of New Testament Christianity.

      Restoration became the means of achieving unity with the longer term goal that the world may believe and accept the Gospel--cf. John 17:20-21. Reference to Churches of Christ publications will anticipate among other things the restoration of unity, a common mission and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord. In practice we have believed that in the New Testament there has been a given pattern for the faith, worship and life of the church, although not complete in every detail. The New Testament has contained principles, precepts and precedents by which we may be guided. If there are difficulties about the concept they occur when we argue for fixed patterns and models which do not take account of the changing circumstances within the New Testament church.

      Restoration as an ideal for today's church challenges us to search out every aspect of New Testament church life and seek to live by that discovery. To our insights about such issues as mutual ministry, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, church government and so forth, we need to add new concerns for such matters as spiritual gifts, worship practice and principles of evangelism as we see them in the New Testament. There is a danger in thinking that the traditional concerns represent the task completed, whereas the pursuit of the restoration ideal is a continuing life. Theological study is done in each generation as the church faces new issues and challenges. Ideally our Restoration concept should continually thrust us back to New Testament origins to both check on our developing lifestyles and to give us impetus for new initiatives and ideas. We need to see the Restoration concept as a dynamic principle at work in our life and not some limiting, ancient rule which frustrates the possibility of change and forward thrusts.

      Unity was the second concept which shaped our origins. The situation at the end of the twentieth century is vastly different from that of the Campbells'. Since that time the church universal has witnessed great tides of change where old enmities have been put aside and numerous denominational groupings have negotiated to come together in new unified structures. Is there a place today for the union emphasis of our Plea? In an analysis of our present situation Graeme Chapman (1) raises the issue as to whether the unity theme in our midst is an important enough issue today to constitute a major emphasis. He says (2), "If we feel that we should retain Unity as a major emphasis we will have to explore alternative models to that of our Restoration tradition or those on which mergers that have already taken place in other churches, for example the Uniting Church, are based The former is too vague and smacks too much of a you-come-and-join-us attitude. The latter, which points to a doctrinal and structural oneness, is too monolithic, and, for Churches of Christ, runs counter to our prescription against creeds. Continuing commitment to Unity will involve us in what de Bono describes as an exercise in lateral thinking. We would do well, considering the encouragement given in the community generally to individuality and diversity, even in matters of basic philosophy, to work on the further development of creative ecumenical models. These would need to allow for variety in theology and structure in the context of closer cooperation in social and political involvement."

      Thomas Campbell expressed his vision of the church thus, "That the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one." This proposition set a keynote for the leaders of our movement. This was the vision and passion that made us a people. E. L William (3) sees the unity of the church as presented in the New Testament as at once inner and outer, spiritual and visible. This he says is the ideal (cf. John 17). Such statements have been common in our midst. In 1984 the question is how may we expect this concept to be worked out for the future.

      The authors of the World Council of Churches Document "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry" (4) produced from the Faith and Order meeting at Lima, Peru in January, 1982 speak of the churches growing in unity. Convergence is another word used to describe the situation today. "In leaving behind the hostilities of the past the churches have begun to discover many promising convergences in their shared convictions and perspectives."

      Against this hopeful perspective must be set some of the difficulties that are all too apparent in the world church scene. Union discussions around the world have been dogged by difficulties and some of those in which our own churches have been involved--e. g., New Zealand and the United States (C.O.C.U.) have not achieved the goals of their initiators. Within our own family of churches union type discussions have led to internal disunity e. g., United States and New Zealand, in the case of the United Kingdom a complete division with a continuing Church of Christ remaining after other congregations joined with the United Reformed Church.

      At other levels the interest in talks about co-operation and covenanting together have proved abortive. An example of this is this is the breakdown of discussions in England during 1982 between Anglican, Methodist, United Reformed Church, and several other smaller bodies about a covenant relationship.

      Dr. Paul A. Crow Jr. (5), president of the Council on Christian Unity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) notes this type of problem when he writes on the theme--Is There A Crisis In Christian Unity? He notes three points.

      1. The crisis over Christian unity is due to the spiritual uncertainty that marks Western civilization. He cites issues with which we are all too familiar and notes that international interdependence does not create Christian or human unity. Interdependence creates thousands

of new links, but it may also intensify our feelings of loneliness and alienation.

      2. The crisis of Christian unity is also one of growth. Tensions are sparked when an ideal begins to be translated into the lives of people and institutions. Old superficial relations are challenged by the progress made over the last seven decades and churches are entering a period of costly ecumenism.

      3. The crisis of the ecumenical movement is a reflection of the crisis of the churches. On this point he cites internal conflicts, faith crises, institutional survival pangs and uncertainties with an alien society all tending to reflect themselves in the wider discussions and relationships.

      Other issues that create difficulties in the search for Christian unity include powerful barriers such as psychological fears about loss of beliefs, practices and traditions. Crow also cites sociological barriers such as class barriers and mentions the celebrated Church of South India with its congregations divided by language and class structures. History and theology are other obvious barriers. Crow (6) acknowledges that people are turned off by pre-occupation with institutional models of unity to the detriment of spiritual relations and the projection of our image that ecumenism is what happens in bureaucratic and administrative programmes.

      We seem able to announce the imperative to unity with holy fire, but unable to give a clear idea of what visible Christian unity looks like and how it can be achieved.

      This statement well sums up the issue before our own Conference. It would seem clear that because the issues are so complex and daunting and experience discouraging, there is a drift away from these concerns. Arising from the study papers the Commission faced the question is the unity theme today an important enough issue to constitute a major emphasis.

      If we look at the day to day life of local congregations we could well answer no to this question for it is quite clear that our whole Conference structure and local church network can function without this unity thrust. Do we then ignore these theoretical issues and in effect let the 'market forces' determine the future?

      The Commission acknowledges that for much of our common life the concerns will be with the immediate issues of mission and the functioning of local congregations. But acknowledging our heritage as a reforming movement the whole issue of the founding ideals is one which cannot be ignored. The original goals are not as yet achieved, even though the original contextual situation is vastly different.

      Unity and diversity are both God's gifts to our world. There is both a diversity yet essential unity in mankind. The same holds true for the whole created order. Within the New Testament church there is a diversity of form and theology, yet a vision of unity, differences in the natural order are complementary and enriching to the whole. In the same way the diversity of gifts in the church contribute to the life and unity of the whole. Crow (7) comments that the pivotal issue lies in the distinction between diversity and division. Diversity that is compatible with unity is to be encouraged, but division is sinful because it denies the sacrificial love of Christ in overcoming alienation, sin and death. Paul sees division as scandalous--cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-32, but in the same epistle commends the diversity of gifts--1 Cor. 12:4-11. Crow (8) also observes that a familiarity with church history keeps us from condemning all divisions as sectarian and unjustifiable. He cites the Reformation and sees the particular issues of such magnitude that given the dynamics of history, separation was inevitable. In the history of division as witnessed in men such as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, Wesley, and our own Campbell and stone there was a commitment to catholicity and renewal of the church rather than fragmentation. He writes, 'Denominational structures may have been inevitable, but they are also provisional as communities of meaning. They can claim legitimacy only as they serve the search for full unity and manifested catholicity. Whenever denominations are expressions of exclusiveness they are sinful divisions.'

      Acknowledging diversity among Christians, the greater degree of convergence today and the difficulties of actual union type discussions is the idea of a 'spiritual union' one which might express the fulfilment of past hopes? Such a view relieves us of the obligation for further search and allows us the

privilege of choosing friends where we will. A rejection of this viewpoint turns on theological issues and interpretations. Thomas Campbell decisively rejected this idea in the Declaration and Address of 1809 when he set out the first proposition about the church being essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one. This proposition springs directly from our understanding of the oneness Jesus experienced with His Father and his disciples and the prayer that it might continue as the ideal (cf. John 17:21). In other passages Paul speaks of one body (Eph. 4:4) and deplores division (1 Cor. 3). The unity of the New Testament experience was both a spiritual experience which linked believers to each other and to God, but one which also had clear outward form, something that was visible and tangible.

      In looking towards the shape of the future and possible directions W.A. Visser't Hooft makes a distinction between the 'unity of the road' and the 'unity of the goal.' In the first he sees the provisional efforts that are reflected in the many activities of churches and which hold churches together and secondly the fuller unity that can come in God's own time.

      In examining three models of 'unity of the road' Crow (9) observes that they are not substitutes for final goals, nor should they be seen as sequential.

      1. Visible Unity As Co-operation. In this century there has been a steady growth of councils of churches with the intention of expressing co-operation and common action on agreed tasks. At a state level we see this district or city groupings and in the Victorian and Tasmanian Councils of Churches and at a national level in the Australian Council of Churches. Beyond this we have regional bodies around the world and finally the World Council of Churches. In this type of structure churches can work together while retaining their identity. The model is a step towards a wider unity. Peaceful co-existence may however be a substitute for genuine reconciliation.

      2. Visible Unity As Covenantal Fellowship. The covenanting model provides for acknowledgment of one another as full Christian churches, a mutual recognition of members and eventual preparation of joint rites of baptism, confirmation and participation in the Lord's Supper. There is a recognition of ministries and a growth in the decision making processes. Talks along these lines in the United Kingdom were discontinued in 1982 as was previously noted.

      3. Visible Unity As Organic Union This involves two or more groupings coming together in a common structure such as we know in the Uniting Church of Australia. This process has been much at work during this century. There is a diversity within the whole unit. The unit usually sees itself as being on the road to an even wider experience of unity. Crow observes that this process of organic union is one which of recent years has increasingly met strong resistance. A mistrust of structures is at the base of much concern.

      Here we see three models--co-operation--covenant--organic union which whatever the difficulties are pointers along the way. A further development is found in the concept.

      How might we see the final unity we seek. The following three models have been suggested as expressions of a shared vision.

      1. The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches at New Delhi (1961) presented a model for the churches to consider--

      We believe that the unity which is both God's will and his gift to his Church is being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all

and who at the same time are united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion required for the tasks to which God calls his people. Crow (10).

      The key thoughts here are in every place, fully committed fellowship. Here there is a mutual acceptance of members and ministries of each church by all and the churches act and speak together. The idea seems far beyond our reach now, but it is helpful to grasp concepts.

      2. A development comes from a World Council consultation in 1973 at Salamanca, Spain--Concepts of Unity and Models of Union. These ideas were subsequently affirmed at the Nairobi Assembly. Here the idea is of a conciliar fellowship.

      The one Church is to be envisioned as a conciliar fellowship of local churches which are themselves truly united In this conciliar fellowship, each local church possesses, in communion with the others, the fullness of catholicity, witnesses to the same apostolic faith, and therefore recognizes the others as belonging to the same Church of Christ and guided by the same Spirit. As the New Delhi Assembly pointed out, they are bound together because they have received the same baptism and share the same Eucharist; they recognize each other's members and ministries. They are one in their common commitment to confess the gospel of Christ by proclamation and service to the world. To this end each church aims at maintaining sustained and sustaining relationships with her sister churches, expressed in conciliar gatherings whenever required for the fulfilment of her common calling. Crow (11).

      As will be seen the Nairobi statement elaborates the New Delhi statement. In the conciliar fellowship each grouping would put an end to prejudice and animosity and recognize others "as belonging to the same Church of Christ and guided by the same Spirit."

      3. The most recent concept describes unity as a 'communion of communions' and was promoted during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in 1970 at Great St. Mary's, Cambridge by Jan Willebrands. As a model of visible unity the suggestion is that the church work towards a plurality of types within the communion of the one and only Church of Christ. Each type or sister church has traditions of theology, spirituality, etc. There is for example a Roman Catholic type, an Orthodox type, a Reformed type, etc. These would remain basically unchanged, but would recognize each other as belonging to the one Church of Christ and live in communion with each other.

      These ideas project for us some of the possibilities. They help to give shape to the possible vagueness of the mere recitation of ideals. Experience suggests the goal is a long way ahead, but we are in a position to choose our way along the road. The Commission sees the period ahead as one where these ideas can be discussed and considered. There may also be more appropriate ideas that will emerge.

      In a lecture in Melbourne in 1983 the English philosopher and writer Os Guinness suggested that Western Christianity faced the greatest crisis yet experienced in her history. Such changes have occurred because of the social and technological developments of our industrialized society. Peter Morgan, a Disciples of Christ minister and an officer of the Board of Homeland Ministries, in a lecture at Bethany College in April, 1983 gave an analysis somewhat akin to that of Guinness. He raises the question as to whether mainline denominations in the United States will not become the victims of these great changes. A continuing decline could so weaken them that they will be supplanted in strength and leadership by newer evangelical bodies. This scenario is certainly raised as a possibility for early next century in a book by Richard G. Hutcheson, Jr. "Mainline Churches And The Evangelicals." The author writes from a position of membership within one of the mainline denominations and with a wide perspective on the scene. Some of the same patterns are evident in our Australian scene though not possibly as marked at this stage. Such a situation does not encourage us to move further towards a mainline denomination type stance and leaves us with the situation of finding ourselves somewhere between the sect and denomination

--the established or institutionalized sect. As we face a decade or so ahead this position could be a strength for Churches of Christ. It allows us to be on the margin of mainstream churches. Hans Mol (12), a sociologist and a Presbyterian minister who worked in Australia for some years, describes marginality as an asset for and even as the source of innovation, rationality, objectivity, efficiency and individualism. Marginality is then a position of strength as against weakness. In a similar way we find ourselves very much as a minority group in the Australian church scene. Mol (13) again describes the role of minority groups in the arts, politics, the sects and maybe the churches as having a disproportionate effect on the long term directions of Australian society. These two comments are very affirming for a group such as ourselves as we seek to shape our own directions in a very complex religious land cultural scene. We need to see that institutions can have a role in shaping their own histories and that of others. If we can acknowledge the uncertainties and doubts which are a part of our life we should find ourselves taking the first steps on the pathway to transformation and renewal. As an institution we must learn to live openly with our contradictions, experimentation and searching. We need to be comfortable with error and failure and to seek to learn from them as against savaging ourselves and others about the problems. The years ahead of us are for learning, searching, growth and development. Out of this situation we have the ability to influence others with our reforming idealism, but only if there is an adequate quality about our common life as a Brotherhood.

      There is a role of advocacy for us about our ideas. Historically we have advocated the restoration of New Testament life and practice. The challenge is to continue to research and discover the meaning of this life and to demonstrate its validity in the wider scene. Our danger is to lose the vitality and drive of the 'sect' and settle for a more sedate 'denominational' status. There is the opportunity to act at times as a bridge between larger and smaller Christian groups yet on the fringe of inter-church life. We are in a special position to do this if we choose because we stand so clearly between such groupings. Our commitment to the spirit of co-operation and our freedom of movement with larger churches enables us to act as a catalyst where at times we might serve the whole church and her mission. By the very nature of our size and the strong cohesion and relatively committed membership there is a potential to demonstrate a quality of life and churchmanship that makes its own witness and gives a validity to the issues we seek to stress out of our reforming heritage.

      The writers of the discussion papers saw our churches as living with the best features of both the sect and denomination. We have maintained a strong sense of identity, have a distinctive message and approach and are not obscurantist. Given the processes at work within our membership a shift towards a stronger 'sect' type approach is virtually impossible. Our midway position is a strength in itself. The further our churches shift towards denominational styles the greater are the possibilities of a loss of distinctiveness and a cutting edge. Denominationalism unwittingly promotes both secularization by its endorsement of diversity, and secularism, by its increased acceptance of secular values and insight.

      G.L. Chapman (14) stresses the need to discover new needs within the community just as our forefathers did in our early stages of development. He notes that few individuals remain the same people in the same location all their lives. With churches spread throughout Australia and a generally wide range of membership in socio-economic terms we are well placed to search the Australian community particularly when our pluralistic society is tending to level denominations and church groupings. The emphasis upon community is highlighted in the following--

      Because of the frequency with which people shift house, because of the pluralism into which individuals are socialized from the cradle, because of the anonymity of modern life, forced on people and used by them as a defence, and because of the homelessness of the modern mind, people have a desperate need for the experience of community, where they can belong and feel secure--a place for them. Way should not this be the need at which we aim! Chapman (15).

      K. D. Home (16) sees the qualities of openness, acceptance and a sense of community as being vital elements in our future development. In a similar vein he places our churches between mainline denominations and other groupings.

      Our Brotherhood is in a state of transition as it gradually adjusts to a changing Australian community. In the process the founding ideals and practices are being tested, refined and rethought. The transition processes are well advanced and the Commission believes that our churches and leaders are coming to terms with the challenge to our ideas and the practical realities of what can be achieved (e. g., restoration, unity) and what is for the future. To assist the churches in this process every encouragement needs to be given to new studies and thinking about our history, life and ideas. As we move towards a new century we progressively need new insights ranged around biblical, theological, historical and sociological studies. There is a need for depth and integrity about our ideas if they are to carry us forward into a new century and enable us to enter into discussions at a wider church level. Such a process takes time and in the current climate we are well placed to pursue these matters.

      The Commission welcomes the opportunities for fraternal and co-operative links with other Christians believing that they enable us to both contribute and receive. Examples of these links include liaison with the Uniting Church through its Joint Board of Christian Education and the various programmes of cooperation with local churches--e. g., Dareton, Brim, Churchill, and with the Baptist Union through the liaison in theological training with Whitley College.

      A survey of the Australian church scene does not suggest that in the present climate there is any strong mood towards union type discussions. This is understandable in the aftermath of the Uniting Church of Australia negotiations and the general pessimism of the church as a whole in Australian society. Comment has previously been made on these issues. However while possibilities in one period may be low, another time may provide fresh opportunities. There is a need to stimulate and refurbish our ideas for such a time. Alongside this emphasis we do have the opportunity to share our experience about church life and practice subject to the quality and calibre of that experience.

      An issue which will be of determinative significance for our future will be the whole issue of growth. The present membership trends and percentage growth rates at an overall Australian level are most encouraging. Assuming these continue our work should prosper, morale continue to be high and an overall strengthening of the work be apparent. The fact of membership growth is in itself evidence of our ability to relate to sections of Australian society. Conversely any sustained pattern of decline places our whole future orientation in jeopardy. Alongside membership growth there is a strong need for churches to be concerned for the whole issue of spirituality and discipleship that the whole life of the Brotherhood will be enriched and deepened

      As a Movement we stand in a position where we are free of restricting traditions and organization and have a widespread base for future operations. There is a cohesive and committed membership, and the best trained ministry in our experience. It is a time for bold planning in outreach, evangelism, church planting, the effective nurture and discipling of members and their enlistment in mission tasks. The years ahead as a pilgrim people require us to grapple with the issues of modern consciousness and how we can speak to people out of our experience and ideological commitment to the future of the church in Australian society. These are all tasks which the smaller, close and well structured church body like ourselves is ideally suited to tackle if we can catch the vision. The challenge is for us to project ourselves as a truly Australian church and speak with a voice that comes to grips with both the Australian heritage and the lifestyle of today.

[NOF 677-692]