Chapter 3
Theological Restatement

1. INTRODUCTION

Within Churches of Christ the years 1864-1914 saw considerable theological development. During the period 1914-1939 the movement was concerned with a restatement of its theological position. The new developments needed to be incorporated and the traditional apologetic refined to take account of fresh insights and the criticisms of both friends and opponents.

This chapter will concentrate almost exclusively on the theology of A. R. Main. The reason for this is that within Churches of Christ, at least in the area of theology, Main dominated the period in a manner not witnessed previously and not possible afterwards. His First Principles, a handbook on basic Christian doctrines written for Sunday School teachers and scholars, became one of the classics of the movement. A brilliant Scot, Main had migrated to Australia in 1892. His dominance of the period derived from his moral integrity, his recognized brilliance and the fact that he was Principal of the Federal College of the Bible from 1911 to 1938 and editor of the Australian Christian from 1914 to 1940. Main was spoken of by Dr. A. C. Garnett, a graduate of the College of the Bible and Melbourne University, a missionary to China and Professor of Philosophy at Wisconsin for twenty-seven years, as having exerted his brilliant talents in a way that has moulded the thought of the Australian Brotherhood into a singularly uniform pattern".¹ [131]

This treatment of Main's theology concentrates on the question of unity and the doctrine of baptism. The focus on unity resulted from two interconnected developments, an increasing emphasis on unity within the Australian Churches of Christ and broader ecumenical developments. The reason why Main wrote extensively on baptism was that he was drawn into debate with paedobaptists.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY

In his attitude towards the Bible Main was no less conservative than earlier leaders. He had an immense respect for the Scriptures and aligned himself, and the movement, with those scholars and theologians who attempted to combat what they termed "Liberalism" or Modernism". His approach, however, was not negative, but constructive.

For Main, the Bible was the Christian's supreme authority.² He argued that the Scriptures enjoyed an authority that was not shared with tradition.³ Furthermore, while secular philosophies⁴ and other religions had "a certain measure of truth in them (which) must be held to have come from God",⁵ they were to be brought under the judgement of Scripture.⁶ [132]

Main argued that the truth of the Biblical revelation was static and changeless. The furthest he was prepared to go in acknowledging any development was to endorse the traditional Churches of Christ distinction between the Old and New Covenants. He could not agree with Charles Strong that Jesus adapted the Ten Commandments to new circumstances. Instead, he argued that Jesus was returning to the original divine motive.⁷ However, while stressing the givenness and inalterability of revealed truth, Main did point out that no-one was personally acquainted with the whole. Though "the storehouse is not new . . . there are doubtless truths in it which we are either ignorant of or neglect".⁸ He was also aware that "the old truth" needed to be presented in "new dress" to each generation,⁹ and that there were times when it had to be defended, though Christians should not be apprehensive about the outcome, as the truth would be vindicated.¹⁰

Main's acceptance of the Scriptures as the Word of God was based on what he understood to be the attitude of Christ and the apostles to the Old Testament,¹¹ and on several factors which he considered sufficient to demonstrate the authority and inspiration of the New Testament. These were Christ's words regarding the Spirit's work in assisting the apostles' recollection of what he had said and in leading them into new understanding of that truth, the contrast between the New Testament canon and [133] extra-biblical literature of the second century, and the popularity and extensive circulation of the New Testament Scriptures.¹²

In treating this subject in First Principles Main listed eight additional reasons for the acceptance by Christians of the Bible's claim to authority. The first was "the marvellous unity and harmony of the Bible". Within the Bible there was a unity of purpose ("to teach men God's will and to help them to do it") and a unity "in its treatment of sin and its cure. The second point was that "the effect of the Bible on the lives of men proves its claim". Main went on to argue that the superior morality of the Bible is only explicable on our acceptance of its claims. Furthermore, when compared with the theology of other books and systems, the Bible's revelation of God is seen to possess a transcendent excellence. On this point Main argued:

There is no reason to believe that the actual men who wrote the Bible were geniuses, ahead of the best of the Greeks and Romans. Their purer theology is due to the fact that the Spirit of God directed them.

Another point Main argued was that "the character of Christ revealed in the New Testament could not possibly be the invention of men". The writers must have drawn from a "holy original". The relevance of this contention, according to Main, was that from such a conviction one passes "to a belief in Jesus, and thence to a belief in his divine claims and the Scriptures he endorsed". Main also contended that the Bible, in its knowledge of the human heart and its adaptation to man's needs, testified to its divine origin. The two final points Main argued were that the Bible can be [134] tested by fulfilled prophesies and that it had endured "the assaults of the centuries".¹³

Main was chary of outlining his view of inspiration in case it should be construed as the authoritative view of the movement. He was, however, drawn into a treatment of the subject by A. C. Garnett, who argued that, in contending "for the historic canon as divinely authoritative, the movement was contradicting its claim to be pleading for the elimination of human authority". Garnett was wanting to stress the point that Christ's words alone were authoritative. Main, in reply, was careful to point out that those in the movement who did not regard the whole canon as inspired or authoritative he accepted as brothers. He did, however, disagree with Garnett's low view of apostolic inspiration. To the contention that, if the apostolic inspiration was complete there would have been no need for Peter's vision at Joppa, Main replied that, while commissioned to deliver the Divine plan, Peter was not, in the moment of initial inspiration, necessarily acquainted with all its implications. Furthermore, it would be absurd for anyone to claim that full inspiration would only be possible if all truth were delivered at one time". Commenting on the conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch, he contended that this was a difference in conduct, not doctrine, and that no-one would argue that inspiration so coerced an apostle's will that he was free from sin. He answered the argument that Paul gave different advice to different groups of women by suggesting that Paul was applying a principle to different concrete instances. To the contention that Paul admitted on occasions that he was giving his own judgement, he replied that the apostle was merely pointing out that he was not relaying initial revelation, but rather giving an inspired application in particular [135] circumstances.¹⁴ While, in his reply to Garnett, Main avoided outlining his own view of the method of divine inspiration, he had earlier given editorial endorsement to an article advocating a concursive theory that suggested that

the inspiring work of the Holy Spirit was united with the intellectual activity of the human writers, working through it and leading it, the result . . . being that the language expressed with unfailing accuracy the thought which God intended it to convey.¹⁵

In his response to trends in biblical scholarship that appeared to undermine faith in the veracity of the Scriptures Main was less reactive than Dunn. He was surer of himself, and largely confined his rebuttals to attacks upon the New Testament. His major line of defence, following Professor David Smith, was to accept what he regarded as the Bible's self-attestation. This approach he supported by arguing that the Scriptural record was internally consistent and unified in its Christological focus.¹⁶

While Main frequently laid stress on the authority and inspiration of the Bible, he was even more concerned to stress that it be read.

No-one can grow in grace and knowledge who neglects the Book of God. Our Saviour nourished his own soul on the Scriptures, and reaffirmed that man lives not by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The apostle Paul tells us that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. They are profitable for instruction and righteousness, and are given that the man of God may be complete and furnished completely unto every good work. So nobody can be complete or completely furnished who neglects the sacred writings.¹⁷ [136]

In stressing the importance of reading the Bible, Main was careful to point out that it was even more important to put into practice what was read, for the Scriptures were given for our guidance in life".¹⁸

The study of the Scriptures, which Main urged, was not to be an end in itself. The Bible was to be read to bring the Christian into closer relationship with Christ. According to Main, the true function of Scripture was "to testify to Christ and to lead man to him".

The Jews believed that in the careful study of the Scriptures, and in the laborious keeping with minute scrupulosity of the requirements of the law, they would find life eternal; but the purpose of God was that the Scriptures should prepare for Jesus Christ His Son, and lead to him, as the real source of spiritual life.¹⁹

Because Main considered that what he had to say was founded on the authority of the Bible, he spoke and wrote with authority. He argued that there was no need for Christians "to assume an attitude of cringing humility and apology" when proclaiming their "faith in the abiding word which came by revelation of the Spirit".²⁰ He also expressed himself simply and was easily understood. The authority and clarity of his utterances caused the membership of the Australian Churches of Christ, who throughout the years 1914-1939 looked to him for guidance, to feel secure in their faith and beliefs. [137]

In his epistemology Main was no less conservative than earlier leaders. He made it clear that he regarded the Scriptures as the Word of God. He interpreted the Bible intelligently, expressed himself succinctly and was unmoved by the arguments of recent biblical scholarship, which appeared to challenge its authority.

3. UNITY

From the beginning the Australian Churches of Christ argued that they were concerned for the unity of the Church. In the early years, however, this aim was dwarfed by the movement's emphasis on Restoration, which was so insistently stressed that it almost became an end in itself. However, by the turn of the century Churches of Christ were giving much greater attention to the question of unity. During the years 1914-1939 A. R. Main gave it even greater prominence.

Main argued that Christians should be concerned about unity because it is the will of God.²¹ Other reasons were ancillary.²² In line with the traditional beliefs of Churches of Christ, Main contended that the unity willed by God was both spiritual and visible. Spiritual unity on its own was insufficient because it did not take account of Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17, which envisaged a unity of which the world would be aware. Co-operation and federation were not enough.²³ What was needed was the restoration of the unity that Christians of the [138] Apostolic age enjoyed. This was a visible, but not a highly organized, oneness within, and between, local autonomous congregations. He wrote of

one visible organization on earth, one church composed of members wearing the same name, making the same credal confession and entering the church by the same initiatory ordinance, friendly and loving in their attitude.²⁴

The distinguishing characteristic of Main's Christian unity emphasis was its Christological focus. Speaking in 1940 at the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Lygon Street Church, he stated that the essence of the plea which Churches of Christ made was

the putting of the pre-eminent Christ in his rightful place, and for the profession and practice. now as in the early days. of a religion which expresses itself in terms of Christ--so that in name, message, creed, ordinance, life and hope, he, our Blessed Lord, may be exalted and given central place in our lives.

He went on to say:

The appeal, rightly made and understood, has not been that people come to us, but rather that we all come to Christ, hear him, and obey him as our Lord and Master, making a common faith in and loyalty to him the bond of union and test of Christian fellowship.²⁵ [139]

To further the cause of unity Main sought to promote within Churches of Christ an understanding and acceptance of other communions. He pointed out that Churches of Christ shared with other Protestants belief in the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ and the sufficiency of his sacrifice, the priesthood of all believers, and the doctrine of justification by faith.²⁶ Furthermore, he was quick to underline the contribution other churches had made to the elucidation of Christian understandings.²⁷

He did have difficulty, however, with Roman Catholicism. What most distressed him were that church's involvement in politics, and certain unacceptable dogmas. Concerning the first, he warned of the political aspirations of the Roman pontiff, whose munificence contrasted with the poverty of Christ. He argued that Papal interference in Australian society was evident in the ne temere decree²⁸ and agitation for State grants for Catholic schools.²⁹ Dogmas he objected to were the notion that there was no salvation outside Rome, the placing of tradition on a level with Scripture, Mariolotry, and the idolatrous mediatorship of the saints. He also argued that the Catholic hierarchy had no right to modify the ordinances of God's appointment. The hierarchy itself he considered to be based on Jewish and pagan models. Other doctrines and practices to which he objected were the decreed [140]

infallibility of the Pope, the unscriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which included the consignment of unbaptized infants to limbo, the blasphemous doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, auricular confession and the sale of indulgences.³⁰

Despite his strong opposition to the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism, Main did not begrudge praise where he felt it due. He pointed out that his celebration of the Protestant Reformation should not be construed primarily as anti-Catholic agitation. He claimed that he had "no special bias against Roman Catholics". Great numbers of Catholics lived excellent lives, among whom were numbered some of the world's true saints.³¹ He admitted that certain Popes had been excellent men.³²

By the end of the 1930's Main's attitude had become more liberal.³³ Part of the reason was that he came increasingly to regard Catholics as allies against critics denying the authority of the Scriptures.³⁴

Largely in the interests of unity, Main stated that he intended substituting a positive and constructive presentation of the movement's doctrinal position for the defensive, negative stance of earlier years.³⁵ Furthermore, he drew attention to [141] the fact that Churches of Christ had originated through Thomas Campbell's concern for unity. Praising the beautiful spirit of love pervading the Declaration and Address,³⁶ Main pointed out to fellow Restorationists that their advocacy of New Testament union was in danger of being undercut if accompanied by an un-Christian spirit which failed to recognize the standing of other Christians, the devotion of their lives to Christ, and their efforts (which at times may shame us) to advance the Kingdom of God". He argued that Churches of Christ" should be on guard against accepting the very position which they condemned in others".

He wrote:

Let us remember that we may disavow sectarianism and be sectarian at heart. It is possible to use a New Testament name in a denominational sense. It is possible to have a narrow view and a wizened spirit and yet in words plead for union. It is possible for us, so to put 'our people' in the forefront that we' seek to become great and strong rather than that we wish to advance the Kingdom of God.³⁷

He also remarked that the saints were not confined to one communion, that no one body had all the truth, and therefore Churches of Christ had much to learn from others.³⁸ In his gracious attitude toward other Christians, Main showed the way. Apart from a rare lapse into gentle sarcasm,³⁹ he was generous in his praise of others, such as when he described Dr. Fitchett, Methodist editor of the [142] Southern Cross, as an ornament to Australian literature and a much esteemed religious leader".⁴⁰ From his own experience he was able to point out that it is possible to love those with whom one Disagrees,⁴¹ and to suggest that "when we all act as we profess to believe, doubtless divisions will vanish".⁴²

In the interests of unity, and to further develop among Churches of Christ an awareness of broader ecumenical initiatives, Main traced the course of the latter in editorials. His comments, though discriminating, were enthusiastic and affirming.

Since the Lambeth Conference of 1888, Anglicans had been talking unity.⁴³ In commenting on their overtures to other churches, Main commended them for their willingness honestly to face up to divisive issues.⁴⁴ However, while praising the spirit of brotherliness that marked their utterances, he pointed out that there were several factors in their approach which Churches of Christ could not accept, especially the requirement of a credal basis,⁴⁵ and their episcopal form of church government, together with the doctrine of apostolic succession on which he considered it based.⁴⁶ He [143] was also concerned with the implication that others would need to join the Anglicans,⁴⁷ and with the growing interest among Anglicans in union with Rome.⁴⁸

Negotiations between Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists, which began in earnest in the second decade of this century, also drew favourable comment from Main. While he felt that this union, if consummated, would fall short of the New Testament ideal, he did say:

We may, however, express our pleasure that three bodies so influential and with so much in common, should give themselves thus seriously to the removal of the reproach of division. We cannot but thank God for this sign of progress, and sincerely trust that not only may this proposed union be consummated, but that it will be but the beginning of a wider Movement which will be for God's glory and the good of mankind.⁴⁹

Because of the fact that he considered that Churches of Christ had a responsibility to share with others their discovery of the divine plan for union, Main was unhappy when they were overlooked in symposia on union,⁵⁰ or erroneously listed among those opposed to union.⁵¹

When a World Conference on Faith and Order was first mooted, Main commented: [144]

Our sympathies must be with those who labour for the union of believers in the Lord. Their purpose is a noble one, and their motives are pure and disinterested.⁵²

Several months later he argued that, while there was little hope of Christian unity until the teachings and practices of the Word of God were substituted for human tradition, he went on to add that "the aim and motive of those responsible for the overtures are so admirable and Christlike that we most sincerely wish them blessing in their efforts".⁵³ Commenting on the proposed agenda, and the call to unity of the 1927 Lausanne Conference, Main remarked:

We cannot but rejoice at such a statement. It is most cheering to think of an international conference representing so many different communions coming to agreement regarding the need of unity and the message of the gospel.⁵⁴

Main was happy with the Lausanne statement that acknowledged sin as being the major cause of division, that emphasized the need to return to the Scriptures for a basis of unity, and that came up with a baptismal credo which he felt accorded with the Restoration position.⁵⁵ He followed the Oxford and Edinburgh conferences with interest.⁵⁶ When the Victorian Regional Committee of the World Conference of Faith and Order was set up, he argued that Churches of [145] Christ should be involved and "in a loving spirit of co-operation . . . bring our contribution to the Union conferences".⁵⁷ In 1937, considering that members should be adequately informed of what was proposed, he published a prospectus of the projected World Council of Churches.⁵⁸ To allay the suspicion of those who hesitated at involvement, even if only at this stage at the level of sympathy, he later pointed out that this new body was not a federation of churches but a council where Churches of Christ should be represented to place before other churches their plea for a New Testament based unity.⁵⁹

Despite his advocacy of a greater spirit of brotherliness, and his urging the movement to involve itself in ecumenical encounter, Main's attempt to encourage closer acquaintance with, and greater acceptance of other Christian groups, was undercut by several factors.

The first was the fact that, while he warmly commended union initiatives, and sought to foster recognition of affinity with other churches through editorials in the Christian, the influence of his book First Principles overrode this influence. Designed as a Sunday School text, it became accepted as the textbook of the movement. In it Main treated such basic doctrines as the Bible, sin, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, repentance, confession, baptism and the Church. Its emphasis, admittedly latent, was on restoration rather than unity. Furthermore, its Bibliocentric focus was at variance with Main's claim to be promoting a Christocentric basis of unity. [146]

The second factor, not unrelated to the first, was the fact that Main was not backward in letting it be known that, as concerned as he was to promote unity, he would never sacrifice truth for the latter. His principal loyalty was to the Scriptures. While he stressed that Churches of Christ were "willing to unite with any people at any time on the Scriptures",⁶⁰ he would have more accurately represented his position if he had gone on to say "as understood by Churches of Christ". For Main, therefore, Christian union was secondary, and was not to be pursued if it meant "the toleration of the denial of the fundamental truths of our faith".⁶¹ He pointed out that, while the Saviour had prayed for union, he had also prayed that the disciples be sanctified by the truth. He stressed to fellow members that "we cannot seek a peace or a union at war with truth. It is but half of our plea to say that we plead for union. We seek for union on the basis revealed in the Word of God".⁶² Succinctly put, his opinion was:

A Restoration plea is at once a more fundamental and a broader one than is a plea for union as such . . . Not even for a union of the scattered hosts of Christendom could we give up our Biblical heritage.⁶³

To the charge that this attitude perpetuated division, Main replied:

The person who stands for that which has New Testament authority is not responsible for any resultant separation from people who will not so stand.⁶⁴

For Main the conflict between unity and truth was most evident in discussions on baptism, which was [147] the major stumbling block hindering union. While Main stated that "the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and Divine Saviour, and submission to him and obedience to his Word, are all that is necessary for union",⁶⁵ and stressed that union was not a matter of accordance of beliefs about Christ but a shared experience of being "in Christ",⁶⁶ he was unwilling to compromise on baptism. He realized that not all members of the Australian Churches of Christ were as insistent as he was. In 1916 he took to task T. H. Scambler, who was to succeed him as Principal, for stating that the Movement's plea for union involved "the recognition as Christian of all who sincerely love and serve the Lord Jesus whether they coincide with us in doctrine and ordinances or not.⁶⁷ Main's argument ran:

No-one could begin to prove from the Scriptures that any unbaptised person was admitted as a member of the Church. As the Lord has not revealed any change in his plan, we would be without warrant, if we were to take it upon ourselves to admit such today.

Though he argued that "such a position may well be held together with a true charity and with a refusal harshly to judge those who may have a defect of knowledge rather than of love",⁶⁸ his stance was a tacit denial of their complete authenticity as Christians, and helped to keep Churches of Christ theologically isolated from non-immersionist bodies.

Third, Main was seen by opponents to be encouraging proselytization. He reminded Churches of [148] Christ that they were responsible for sharing their insights with others, which in practice involved inviting members of other communions to forsake their "denominationalism".⁶⁹ In justification Main argued that Churches of Christ were not asking others to deny their former faith, "to give up their views and adopt ours and hence to join us and take our position". However, his explanation of the Churches of Christ approach ("it is Christ's Word, the Lord's requirement, the will of God, as revealed in the New Testament, which we ask you to accept and obey") was too strong in its claim to a monopoly of insight to allay suspicion.⁷⁰ It increased rather than dispelled distrust. The dilemma in which Main was caught, between Restoration convictions and his acceptance of others as Christians, was evident in a reply he made in 1929 to the accusation that the movement was deliberately proselytizing. He wrote:

They who take a purely unsectarian position, and who preach Christ, urging their hearers to accept the Lord Jesus as Saviour and comply with the initial requirements of the gospel as well as honour the Lord in a life of service, are not asking folk to unite with them; though, of course, to the extent that preachers and hearers both comply with the advice, they will be united. All the Lord's people are members of his body, the church, and all the redeemed of the earth are of the one family. . . . We never ask men to join our church, but let them know what God has done for their redemption, and what he requires them to do in order to accept his salvation.

He closed his reply by emphasizing that the prospective convert is won, not to a position, but to Christ.⁷¹ [149]

A further factor reducing the effectiveness of Main's advocacy of Christian unity was that he was himself, especially after 1913, (except for some involvement in discussions with Baptists) personally uninvolved in unity discussions. His shyness, heavy workload, and an unwillingness to be placed in a situation where he would have to defend certain of his statements that were open to the charge of inconsistency, may well have been responsible for his staying away from active involvement.⁷² Particularly in later years, Main made his contribution to Christian unity through his pen.⁷³ While he withdrew increasingly from involvement in unity discussions, Main never doubted the fulfillment of Christ's prayer for unity, nor of the relevance of the Restoration message as the means of its consummation.⁷⁴

Main gave greater prominence to the theme of Christian Unity than had previous leaders within the Australian Churches of Christ. However, while seeking to promote a greater spirit of brotherliness among Protestants, and a greater acceptance, on the part of the membership of Churches of Christ, of other communions, Main nevertheless showed himself unwilling to compromise what he believed to be the truth, particularly as this related to the movement's ecclesiology and soteriology. [150]

4. THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

a. The Priority of the New Testament

Main distinguished, as the pioneers and later leaders had done, between the Old and New Testaments. He argued that this distinction was crucial because

a vast amount of mischief has been done on the one hand by those who seek in the Old Testament for details concerning the New, and on the other of those who would bring over into the New Covenant rites and priestly notions which were only given by God in the Old.⁷⁵

However, while distinguishing between the Old and New Testaments, Main, unlike the pioneers, went on to stress continuities between the two covenants and an underlying unity that, at a deeper level, embedded each in the other. To describe the relationship between the two, Main used what he called "the oft-quoted passage":

The Old Testament Scriptures are essentially one with the New; both are so compacted that the latter may be seen to rest upon the former, since the former are pregnant with types and shadows which find their realisation in the latter. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.⁷⁶

For Main, as for the pioneers, the New Testament was normative for Christians.⁷⁷ Beliefs and practices were to be derived from it. However, Main's approach was more open in that, whereas the pioneers spoke about the New Testament "pattern", Main also referred to New Testament "principles".⁷⁸ This was evident as early as 1913 when, in a statement made by Dunn and Main and presented at a Victorian Congress on Union, it was explained that, while Churches of Christ "follow as nearly as possible the divine model . . . a degree of liberty" is allowed provided that it does not violate [151] any New Testament principle.⁷⁹

The pioneers, in emphasizing that the Christianity of the New Testament was the norm for all time, had focussed their attention principally in the area of Church government. When Main came to treat this issue, he contended that Churches of Christ had, from the beginning, inadequately emphasized the need to reproduce the spirit of the New Testament. This spirit was a spirit of love,⁸⁰ sharing,⁸¹ buoyancy and cheer, confidence, serenity and abiding peace.⁸²

b. The Question of Interpretation

Main argued that one of the subtle temptations to which Churches of Christ are prone was to think that all doctrine could be made simple.⁸³ His point was that while the way of salvation and other vital issues were clearly revealed, the Scriptures were an incredible mine of wealth, much of which can only be extracted by diligent and unremitting labour".⁸⁴ The numerous conflicting interpretations of Scripture bore witness to the inherent difficulty of some sayings.⁸⁵

In the tradition of Alexander Campbell, Main argued that in studying a Scripture passage the Bible student "should always seek to know to which division it belongs, the persons addressed, the occasions upon which and the purpose for which it was written".⁸⁶ He also urged avoidance of spiritualizing and allegorical interpretation⁸⁷ and contended that verses [152] were to be understood in their linguistic and cultural context.⁸⁸ This did not involve any license to distort the true meaning of Scripture, for in "rightly dividing the Word" expositors were to ensure that they did not empty Bible words of their correct meaning.⁸⁹ His approach was best expressed in the statement of purpose he wrote for the College of the Bible Handbook:

The chief purpose of the College of the Bible is to provide biblical instruction on liberal and scientific principles for students (and) to encourage an impartial and unbiased investigation of the sacred Scriptures, and in a spirit of devout faith in the divine Word, freely to lay under tribute every source of light and truth available to modern scholarship.⁹⁰

While the aim was impressive, it can be argued that, because of his particular understanding of the phrase "devout faith in the divine word", Main was prevented from being impartial. However, he continued to argue for a balance between objective and subjective elements in the process of interpretation. This was evident in an article he wrote on "Getting the Sense of Scripture", in which he laid down two general rules

The first is: read the Bible as you would read any other book. Give it as fair a treatment and employ the same methods of interpretation. The second is: read the Bible as you would read no other book. Its divine origin, its incomparable teaching, its unique place in literature, should ensure for it greater care, better attention, more diligent study than that accorded to any other book in the world.⁹¹

To avoid discord over rival interpretations, the pioneers had argued that Scriptural language should be [153] used to set forth Bible truths. While Main was generally agreed that the language of revelation should be used to describe spiritual realities, he was more skeptical of the claim that this would aid ecumenical consensus.⁹² Furthermore, he went on to contend that there were non-biblical words which also helped in understanding Bible truths.⁹³

In re-interpreting the traditional position of Churches of Christ on the question of Scripture exegesis, Main was careful to keep in tension two important principles. On the one hand, he argued that "the wisest theologian, greatest scientist and most learned philosopher are on the same level with the humblest Christian" in their capacity to under-stand the Scriptures;⁹⁴ on the other, he emphasized the value of scholarship.⁹⁵

In summary, it has to be concluded that Main's approach to the Scriptures was constructive. His approach was positive and authoritative. Furthermore he studiously avoided raising doubts through his teaching and preaching and sought to encourage similar behaviour in others.⁹⁶ His basic emphasis was on the living out of the Word. What did not promote this was of secondary importance.⁹⁷

c. Facts and Opinions

Main agreed with the pioneers that Scriptural facts, rather than opinions about those facts, [154] should be emphasized. Needless controversy could be prevented by avoiding the expression of preference for a theory. At this point his pragmatism reinforced the movement's traditional discouragement of publicly debating anything beyond the facts of Scripture.⁹⁸

While Main scrupulously sought to avoid stating his preference for a particular theory, he sometimes revealed his view through comments he made on extreme positions he considered should be avoided.⁹⁹ He was particularly sensitive about the atonement, because he recognized that his view could be accepted as normative by many within the movement, and because as principal of the College his opinions were closely scrutinized.

d. Essentials and Non-Essentials

The pioneers had distinguished between essentials and non-essentials. Essentials, in the area of doctrine, were facts, as opposed to opinions, which were non-essentials. In the sphere of church organization essentials were normative patterns and principles, while non-essentials consisted of matters of expediency. It was Main's view that "in essentials there cannot be too much of unity", while "in non-essentials there is not likely to be too much liberty, provided Christ be present".¹⁰⁰ Main admitted that Churches of Christ had not always adopted an intelligent attitude towards essentials [155] and non-essentials. Essentials, such as baptism, had been occasionally over-stressed,¹⁰¹ while non-essential items had at times been treated as essential, such as when opinions became convictions,¹⁰² and particular methods were regarded as principles.¹⁰³ He believed, however, that in his time "a sweeter spirit prevailed than was once manifest". He saw in the movement "a happy conjunction of faithfulness and graciousness".¹⁰⁴ In this Main can, in retrospect, be seen to have been over-optimistic. He himself was partially responsible for the continuance of the degree of internal contention and external conflict by, at one and the same time, both encouraging and discouraging greater professionalism within the full-time ministry of Churches of Christ, and by his spirited defence of the movement's theology of baptism.

e. The Use of Creeds

Main, like earlier leaders within Churches of Christ, argued that creeds should not be used as tests of fellowship. He pointed out that while Churches of Christ would have no difficulty accepting the doctrine contained in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, they could not consent to the imposition of creeds as tests of fellowship. The Scriptures did not require subscription to such compendia.¹⁰⁵ [156]

Main felt similarly about speculative theology. Commenting on A Modern Catechism prepared by a Congregationalist, he argued:

The very "modern" Catechism points the way to ruin and extinction just as surely as a definite preaching of the simple truths of the New Testament as distinct from any doctrinal speculation of man means success.¹⁰⁶

f. Summary

Main was committed to the theological pre-suppositions of the Churches of Christ. He believed that the movement's strength lay in its "definite and distinctive message,"¹⁰⁷ based on an impregnable biblical position.¹⁰⁸ For this reason, he suggested to fellow members that "regular attenders at our services should be in no doubt as to our disclaimer of a denominational position".¹⁰⁹ He also urged Churches of Christ preachers to nourish their confidence in the ministry to which God had called the movement, and suggested that they better acquaint themselves with the lives of the pioneers.¹¹⁰

5. DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES

a. Salvation

Main, in his soteriology, was committed to the traditional Churches of Christ position. He was particularly concerned with the subject of baptism. Churches of Christ had, from the beginning. [157] emphasized that salvation was God's act. Main was no less insistent on the divine initiative. He pointed out that, while a human response was required to appropriate salvation, the "foundation principle of our Christian religion is that we are saved by grace". He was aware, however, that, because of the attention Churches of Christ gave to the human response in the conversion experience, they were in danger of slipping into a mechanical concept of salvation.¹¹¹

Taking a serious view of sin,¹¹² Main saw the death of Christ releasing responsive sinners from its guilt, punishment, power and presence.¹¹³ A past, present and future salvation, secured through the atonement, was appropriated by faith in Christ.¹¹⁴ But it was a faith that needed to be expressed in action.¹¹⁵ The action called for involved repentance, that is, the forsaking of sin and the determination to live a new and reformed life.¹¹⁶ It also included the public acceptance and acknowledgement of Christ as Saviour.¹¹⁷ The initial obedience of faith culminated in the act of baptism. Furthermore, believers needed to "continue steadfastly" in the faith. [158]

Salvation could be lost. Challenging those who argued that once an individual was saved there was no chance of his falling away, and that apparent reprobates had never really been Christians, he wrote:

We think it is an unwarrantable inference to draw, and a most uncharitable declaration to make, of a man once an earnest Christian worker and now, alas, a backslider, that he never had any Christian standing.¹¹⁸

In dealing with the soteriology of the movement Main spent considerable time answering the arguments of those advocating infant baptism. His major polemical work, Baptism: Our Lord's Command, was written in response to The Question of Baptism, by A. Madsen, a Methodist advocate of infant baptism.¹¹⁹

Main introduced his case in Baptism: Our Lord's Command by regretting the fact that baptism, one of "the most sacred Bible themes", had been made a matter of controversy. He felt, however, that this was not sufficient cause for his remaining silent on the issue, for such silence would not "prevent those who are not content with what the Lord has revealed from teaching as their doctrines the precepts of Men.¹²⁰

For Main the question of the validity of infant baptism was to be settled by the New Testament. He argued that "no-one knows one wit more of the Lord's will concerning baptism than what the Bible says",¹²¹ and went on to contend that the New Testament supported, not infant, but believer's baptism. His point [159] was:

The advocate of believer's baptism has as his warrant the plain statement and example of the Lord and his apostles. The pleader for infant baptism has neither of these.¹²²

Main next considered the argument advanced by Madsen that infant baptism had Scriptural support of a kind in that it "is not specifically forbidden in the Word of God".¹²³ The logic of this position, that the Lord ordains what he does not forbid, he regarded as extraordinary. He argued:

There is not on earth a Protestant who will consistently act on the principle that an express prohibition is needed in order to exclude a practice as an ordinance of the Lord.¹²⁴

Main went on to comment that the lack of New Testament authority for infant baptism meant that

the leading arguments of paedobaptists are drawn from the Old Testament, from extra-Scriptural Judaistic practice, and from church usage in the centuries after the apostolic age.¹²⁵

Reflecting on the fact that infant baptism was first mentioned in the post-apostolic age, he argued:

We have either to say that the later practice does not prove an apostolic custom or to admit a host of things which Protestants reject as unscriptural.¹²⁶

Main proceeded to treat the major arguments advanced in favour of infant baptism. The first of these was the argument from circumcision. He wrote:

The validity of the argument drawn from infant circumcision as stated by Mr. Madsen depends upon three things, not one of which is true: [160]

1. That there is Church identity or continuity in the Old and New Testaments.
2. That circumcision admitted Jewish infants into "the Church of God" or "the Jewish Church"
3. That baptism has taken the place of circumcision.¹²⁷

It was Main's belief that the people of God in Old Testament times were not part of the Church, which did not come into existence until the descent of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. He also denied that it can be proved that Jewish children were ever initiated into "the Jewish church" by circumcision. He claimed that "they were circumcised because they were in, not in because they were circumcised".¹²⁸ On the question of baptism having taken the place of circumcision, he wrote:

Argument from resemblance or analogy is proverbially weak. It does not follow that because two things are alike in several particulars, therefore they will be found to be alike in other particulars. In the case of circumcision and baptism, the dissimilarities outnumber and outweigh the resemblances.¹²⁹

Main contended that the New Testament itself "disproves the assertion that baptism took the place of circumcision".¹³⁰ The three thousand baptised on the [161] day of Pentecost were Jews. If baptism came in the place of circumcision, then these baptisms should have been unnecessary.¹³¹ Replying to the argument that Paul, in Col. 2:11, 12, identified circumcision with baptism, Main argued that it was necessary to point out that "there is a vast difference between saying that we receive Christ's spiritual circumcision in baptism and saying that circumcision is baptism".¹³²

In concluding his reply to the paedobaptist argument from circumcision, Main summarized his argument thus:

The foregoing study of the circumcision argument shows that baptism is not the same ordinance with circumcision; that on the contrary it was an ordinance of a different covenant in which there was a change of law; that baptism was an initiatory rite as infant circumcision was not; that the Church of Jesus Christ into which baptism is initiatory was not established for nineteen centuries after Abraham's receiving of the covenant of circumcision; and that there is no paedo-baptist body on earth which could claim that the subjects of circumcision (as mentioned in Gen. 17) are the same with the subjects of baptism.¹³³

Main next gave attention to the argument, sometimes advanced by paedobaptists, that Christian baptism was modelled on Jewish proselyte baptism, and because children were included in the latter, [162] the Church was acting in accord with the divine will in baptising infants. Main's opinion regarding this argument was that it consisted of "an inference added to another inference".¹³⁴ The first inference, which fell short of absolute proof, was 'that proselyte baptism was practised in the days of Jesus or of John". The second inference, which Main considered "so wild that to state it is almost sufficient to refute it", was that "the subjects of John's baptism or of Christ's must have been settled by the subjects of Jewish baptism".¹³⁵ In retrospect, this can be seen to have been one of the weaker of Main's arguments.

Main next addressed himself to the argument that the practice of infant baptism could be established on the basis of the fact that, in New Testament times, whole households had been baptised. He began his reply with the following preliminary comments:

That the New Testament records the baptism of some households is certain. That one of these households contained an unbeliever or an infant too young to believe, no-one could prove if his salvation depended upon it.¹³⁶

Explaining himself in greater detail, he went on:

Baptists and members of Churches of Christ agree in baptising believers in Christ. When they are challenged as to their warrant for so doing, they point to New Testament command and example (e.g. Acts 2:38; 8:12; 10:47, 48; 18:8). Our friends perforce agree that we have Scriptural authority for so baptising. When paedobaptists baptise babies, we simply ask that they produce Scriptural warrant for their practice, as we are willing to give for ours. The question is, Can they give this authority? It is a poor evasion of the issue to ask us to prove that no member of the households was incapable of believing or did not believe. It is their practice, not ours, [163] which needs justification. Why do they not give one Biblical instance of or one single command for this thing they do in the name of the Lord? They need to show, what they have ever failed to show, that any baptised household in New Testament days contained an unbeliever or one incapable of belief.¹³⁷

Main regarded the contention that Christ's acceptance of children justified their being baptised as an instance of ignoratio elenchi. Referring to Madsen, he argued:

When asked to prove his position that Jesus wishes infants baptised, he seeks to prove instead, what no-one denies, that Jesus cares for them. We have already seen how Christ's general attitude of benevolence towards little children is advanced in support of, not our benevolence towards, but baptism of, infants. The underlying assumptions of this argument are preposterous; it is foolish to suggest that baptism must accompany benevolence; and it is an unworthy insinuation that they who do not baptise infants are not so well-disposed towards them as the most ardent paedo-baptists are.¹³⁸

Main's argument was heard as a decisive rejection of infant baptism. The stress on benevolence towards children was overlooked frequently in discussions on the nature of the church. Likewise the reference to households were viewed negatively, as scriptural texts not to be used in support of infant baptism, and the corporate dimensions of the household of faith was rarely considered.

Main spent considerable time reviewing claims by Madsen that post-apostolic practice proved that infant baptism was practised from earliest times. He commented first on the fact that the practice was not mentioned in the Didache. Referring to comments by Madsen, that implied that the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Origen hinted at the existence of the practice of infant baptism, Main replied that[164] the first definite reference was in Tertullian, and he opposed it. He went on to comment that Neander, a church historian, had concluded from this that "the practice had not yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution". Regarding a later explicit and positive reference to infant baptism in Cyprian, who was converted around 245 A. D., Main commented that "it is a century and a half late for it to have any weight as to the rightfulness of infant baptism". Furthermore, when first mentioned by its defenders, the practice of infant baptism was seen as a means of removing original sin--a position consonant with the arguments of Romanists, Anglicans and Wesley, but opposed to the view of Madsen, who argued that babies should be baptised because they were holy.¹³⁹

In the beginning of his chapter on post-apostolic practice, Main argued that he was referring to the supposed evidence in favour of infant baptism from such sources, not because it was authoritative, but to answer Madsen on his own ground, by demonstrating how carelessly he treated post-apostolic evidence. For Main it would not have mattered if infant baptism could have been shown to have been in existence immediately or soon after the death of the apostles. Putting his view pungently, he wrote:

We can truly say that, in so far as the question of the rightful subjects of baptism is concerned, we do not care twopence whether or not Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom and Ambrose, were or were not sons of Christian parents or baptised at maturity. Our authority for the baptism of believers would still be the Word of God; and the weakness of paedobaptism would still be that it claims to do a thing in the name of the Lord for which no example or precept can be adduced in the Scriptures given for the very purpose of making us wise unto salvation.¹⁴⁰ [165]

The final chapter in Main's Baptism: Our Lord's Command was given over to an enumeration of what he called "the evils of infant sprinkling". The first point that Main made was that it lacked divine warrant. Ministers of paedobaptist churches, in pronouncing the baptismal formula over infants, were using the divine name without warrant. Furthermore, in substituting infant sprinkling for believer's baptism, they were disobeying a command. Another factor was that infant sprinkling tended to destroy the unity of the Spirit. The "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 was no longer a reality. From this premise, Main argued that

if the "one baptism" is for Paul necessary to "the unity of the Spirit", and if Christian union is necessary for the conversion of the world, then it is a serious thing to put something else in the place of the baptism for which we have explicit Scriptural authority.

A fourth point made by Main was that many were deluded into imagining that they were Christians because they were baptized in infancy. But for this delusion they might be brought to discern their true condition. The final charge Main made against infant sprinkling was that it obscured the symbolism of baptism, which clearly signified that "the believer has died to sin, is buried with Christ and rises from the watery grave to walk in a new life".¹⁴¹

Main's method in Baptism: Our Lord's Command was threefold. He appealed to Scripture and to logic and he quoted paedobaptist against paedobaptist. He demonstrated his acquaintance with the Church Fathers, with the Reformers, and with current scholarly opinion. Lexicons he quoted from included Liddell and Scott, Donnegan, Maltby, Schrevellus, Bagster, Cremer, Grimm-Thayer, Bullinger and the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period. Besides referring frequently to dictionaries and encyclopaedias, he [166] also relied heavily on such church historians as Mosheim, Neander, Kurtz, Schaff, Gwatkin, Fisher, Dollinger, Robertson, Bingham, Harnack, Lambert, Allen, McGiffert and Tyrrell Green. This list in no way exhausts the catalogue of authorities Main quoted, but does indicate something of the range and nature of the scholarship to which he appealed. His style was succinct and aggressive.

When Baptism: Our Lord's Command appeared it was inevitable that it would receive a far from an enthusiastic welcome in paedobaptist, and particularly Methodist, circles. However, apart from criticism that can be levelled against its arguments by those committed to infant baptism, the book can be seen to be flawed at two major points. First, Main was too easily distracted from the main arguments he was setting forth by his desire to reveal minor inconsistencies. Madsen, who was not the most logical of the exponents of his position, and who, in appealing for breadth of vision and sympathy, indulged in special pleading, unwittingly encouraged this. The second criticism relates, not to the way he argued, but to the lack of consistency between his approach in Baptism: Our Lord's Command and his professed ecumenism, which argued that unity should be centred in Christ. His approach in this treatment of baptism was more bibliocentric than Christocentric.

While Baptism: Our Lord's Command can be criticized for its lack of christological focus, this charge cannot be levelled against his treatment of baptism elsewhere, which treatment can be seen to be, not only christological, but also deliberately ecumenical. Baptism, for Main, was always baptism into Christ. He argued that the promises associated with baptism were "not attached to the mere physical act of baptism but always to the baptism of a genuine believer who is accepting God's mercy in [167] Christ and making submission to his Lord". Furthermore, it was this one baptism, in which all Christians share, that both fostered and expressed the unity for which Jesus prayed, and which was exhibited in the early church.¹⁴²

It could be concluded from this treatment of Main's baptismal theology that his approach was negative. This was far from the case. There were several reasons for the appearance of negativity. First, the majority of his comments on baptism in the Australian Christian were replies to paedobaptist statements appearing in the religious press. Second, his major treatment of the issues in Baptism: Our Lord's Command developed from a similar situation. A corrective to what appears as a negative imbalance is found in a chapter in his First Principles, the first of the books he published. There he was concerned to state positively the Churches of Christ position. He commented on the action of baptism, its subjects and significance.

According to Main, baptism in New Testament times was immersion. Sprinkling or pouring could not be regarded as equivalent experiences. This was ruled out on etymological grounds, as well as by New Testament precedent, and the inherent symbolism of baptism. Commenting on the fact that Christians were said to be "buried with Christ" (Romans 6:3, 4 and Colossians 2:12), Main went on:

In sprinkling or pouring there is no enveloping, no covering up, no hiding from view, such as implied in the word "buried"; in immersion there is. We would be quite content that any honest seeker for the will of God should learn that in baptism he should go down into the water, be there "buried in baptism", then rise or come "up out of the water" and should then do what in his heart he believes the Saviour and the early disciples did. [168]

An additional argument advanced by Main, in support of immersion as the valid action of baptism, was that in two instances in which the word baptism is used metaphorically (a baptism of suffering and a baptism in the Holy Spirit) the sense of being overwhelmed was clearly present.¹⁴³

In speaking of the action of baptism, Main was careful to argue that he was not saying that immersion was the mode of baptism.

Immersion is not a mode of baptism; it is baptism. We do not know how the immersion was carried out in New Testament days, but we know that immersion was practised, nor do we speak of baptism by immersion, (though one or two of our quotations from others contain that objectionable idea). "Baptism by immersion" means baptism by baptism or immersion by immersion.¹⁴⁴

The subjects of baptism, according to Main, were repentant believers. The disciples received a command to baptise the same, and those whose baptisms were recorded in the New Testament were those who had repented and believed.¹⁴⁵

For Main, the central significance of baptism was that repentant believers were baptised into Christ. They were baptised into his death, and consequently raised to life with him.¹⁴⁶ Furthermore, it was at this climactic point in the human response that forgiveness was received, and the individual regenerated.¹⁴⁷ The symbolic rebirth in water was co-terminus with spiritual rebirth.¹⁴⁸ It was impossible. Main contended, "to give Scriptural warrant for the separation between the physical and spiritual act".¹⁴⁹ [169]

Main also argued that baptism was "the means, on the human side, of initiation into the Body of Christ". The corollary of this was that children of Christians, by merely being educated into Christian understandings, did not automatically become Christians. Sunday School tuition should be regarded, not as a means of entry into the Kingdom, but as a preparation for the later deliberate choice of the scholar to seek public identification with Christ in baptism.¹⁵⁰

Because of their baptismal theology, Churches of Christ were charged with two errors--baptismal regeneration and regarding baptism as essential to salvation. To the accusation that they, like Roman Catholics, taught salvation by works, Main answered that they had never considered that baptism operated ex opere operato. In linking baptism, forgiveness and entry into the Body of Christ, they had merely used Scriptural language.¹⁵¹ Furthermore, he pointed out that Churches of Christ were not baptismal regenerationists, as they were claiming no more than the delegates at Lausanne in 1927, who had stated "that in baptism administered with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the remission of sins, we are baptised by one Spirit into one body".¹⁵² To the accusation that Churches of Christ regarded baptism as essential to salvation, Main replied: [170]

There have been throughout the Christian centuries hosts of pious people who never heard of the true Bible teaching regarding baptism, yet who sincerely loved the Lord--it is both ridiculous and libellous to say that the Churches of Christ affirm the non-salvation of such by a doctrine of the "essential" nature of baptism.¹⁵³

Those, however, who were better acquainted with the significance of baptism, and who refused obedience, were in a different situation.¹⁵⁴ Main's attitude to the unbaptised was best expressed in a passage in First Principles, where he wrote:

The Lord has been gracious enough to promise certain blessings to the obedient believer. It is our privilege to thankfully accept these, and to pass along the promises to others by faithful proclamation of the Saviour's word. It is not ours either to promise blessings where he has not promised them, or to judge men who, ignorant of the New Testament teaching, yet live up to the light they have.¹⁵⁵

Reflecting in his personal soteriology the shift towards a more accepting attitude that became pronounced at the turn of the century, Main was caught between the traditional baptismal theology and his desire to accept as Christians the members of other communions. It comes as no surprise, therefore, despite his attempt to remove the ambiguity of the Churches of Christ position, that the contradiction remained.

b. The Church

During the years 1914-1939 few ecclesiological issues were debated within Churches of Christ. By 1914 the leadership had decided on a name for the movement and developed and provided theological [171] legitimation for Conferences. The public discipline of errant members had virtually ceased and the question whether money should be received from the unimmersed for the Church's ministry was also on the point of resolution.¹⁵⁶ There were few issues left for Main to wrestle with. What he did do, however, was to give greater clarity to the traditional theology, and, in doing so, to develop a new conservatism. In addition, he made several comments on the nature of conferences, and the conduct of Conference business, and re-emphasized the importance of the evangelistic mission of the church.

The Christocentric focus, evident elsewhere in Main's theology, was to the fore in his ecclesiology. In outlining the nature of the church he was at pains to point out that it was "not a human institution". He wrote:

We speak of the Church of Jesus Christ (for he spoke of it as "my church"; Matthew 16:18); "the Church of God" (Acts 20:28, Gal. 1:13, 1 Tim. 3:5-15); the church which Christ loved and for which he gave himself (Eph. 5:25); the church which is his body, of which he is the head (Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23).¹⁵⁷

According to Main, the Church was the called-out people of God. It was "established at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, about ten days after Christ's ascension into heaven". Christ was its author and foundation. The place of its establishment had been prophetically foretold some seven centuries previously by Micah (4:1, 2) and Isaiah (2:2-4). The time, the "latter days", had also been divinely appointed, as was obvious from Isaiah, but more particularly from the advice of Jesus to his disciples to wait until they were endued with power from on high. The [172]

fulfilment of this promise resulted in the endowment of the apostles for ministry, and, by implication, acknowledgment of their divine appointment "as the Lord's instruments in the establishment of the Church", and their qualification as God's authoritative spokesmen. "The Saviour 's promise to his apostles of the Holy Spirit who should teach them all things and bring all things to their remembrance (John 14:26) was fulfilled on Pentecost". What they spoke, wrote and decided was carried out under the direct guidance of the Spirit. Thus, wrote Main:

We may rely on the teaching and practice of the apostles in the matter of church membership, its conditions and privileges. Men might err, but the guiding Holy Spirit will lead aright, and these men spoke as the Spirit instructed them.¹⁵⁸

Main argued that the Church existed "for the glory of God, the good of its members, the benefit of the world". God knew that "his children would be helped by common worship, by meeting together to present their united petitions to God, by exhorting and encouraging one another". The world was best benefited by the Church through its unity of purpose and effort. Furthermore, as an "object lesson to the celestial beings", the Church would make known "the manifold wisdom of God".¹⁵⁹

Main insisted that membership in the Church was open to those who believed, repented, and were baptised. These were those whom the Lord added (Acts 2:37-41, 47), who were incorporated into the body of Christ (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:27; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 12:13; 15:1-4), and who were translated into the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13; John 3:5; John 5:1). He went on to maintain that to remain in the Church one needed to [173] continue to keep Christ's commandments. He laid great stress on holy living. His argument ran:

Let it not be thought that holiness of life is merely advisable, without being necessary. Jesus taught that fruit-bearing was a condition and test of discipleship (Matt. 7:16-20; John 15:8). Men of disorderly life were withdrawn from (2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:5). The Church of God, both for its own good and in order that the sinner may be brought to repentance, must have no company with men of wicked life (1 Cor. 5:11), or with false teachers, so as to condone their errors (2 John 10, 11). To have Christ, men must abide in the teaching (2 John 9). This continuance in good works, this abiding in Christ, is obviously as important as the first acceptance of Christ. We can never too constantly affirm the need of holy living (Titus 3:8).¹⁶⁰

In treating the Church, in First Principles, Main did not neglect to mention the evangelistic mission of the Church.¹⁶¹ The emphasis, however, was more implicit than explicit. This did not mean that he undervalued the importance of evangelism. In an address, delivered at a meeting of the Collins Street Baptist Church Young People's Social Circle in September 1921, he stated:

One of the most prominent features of the Apostolic Church was the spirit of evangelism. The Christians felt bound to tell the good news of salvation. The apostles were told to "preach the gospel to every creature". Others than apostles--Christians without any official position--went everywhere preaching the Word. One of "the seven" "preached Jesus" in Samaria. The greatest of the apostles determined at Corinth to know nothing but Christ and him crucified. The zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians were justified. Multitudes turned to the Lord, and "the Word of God increased".

Main went on to argue that evangelism was much neglected in his own day. There was altogether too [174] little evangelism of the New Testament type in Australia.

Even preachers in the churches frequently turn from the New Testament evangel. Moral essays rather than gospel facts are at times presented to sinners who are without God and hope in the world. Literary topics, questions even of party politics are sometimes substituted for the preaching of the cross of Christ.

Main went on to express his confidence in Churches of Christ, whom he felt suffered less than others from a lack of enthusiasm, or effort, in evangelism.

Our preachers stand by the Book, believe its message, preach Christ, and, I am glad to say, meet with success--a success which is not to be attributed to special grace or gifts, but to a faithful presentation of the claims of our Lord Jesus, to a definite appeal to sinners for public confession to him, and to the statement in Scriptural terms of what the Lord has asked seekers for salvation to do in order to enjoy the promises of the gospel.

Like previous Church of Christ spokesmen, Main argued that conferences were not legislative bodies, but the combining of churches for evangelistic purposes. No resolution could control a single congregation. Most, however, were influenced by them. Putting a view that demonstrated a growing acceptance of conference leadership, Main wrote:

Of course the decisions of a conference carry great weight, for when a majority of delegates appointed by the churches arrive at decisions after careful thought and discussion, the brethren in the churches are likely to approve the agreement and to support the measures proposed to them.¹⁶²

Main was concerned that Conference business be expedited, and that a brotherly and spiritual atmosphere prevail. He emphasized the benefit of the fellowship enjoyed at conferences and contended that [175] a greater spirit of brotherliness would enhance their value. While it was difficult to leave certain things unsaid, particularly when the circumstances tempted one to speak up, participants in Conference business sessions should discipline themselves to remain silent on such occasions. Main lamented the fact that the devotional sessions were poorly attended, and argued that discussion time monopolised by long-winded speakers would be better given over to prayer.¹⁶³

While Main was not involved in controversial issues in the area of ecclesiology, he set out clearly, and concisely, the theology the movement had expounded from the beginning. He also emphasized the importance of evangelism and offered practical advice on the conduct of conferences.

c. Ministry

In opposing what he felt to be the pretensions of the clergy of the denominations, and in his exposition of the traditional Churches of Christ ecclesiology, Main was in sympathy with the pioneers. Where he differed from them most was in the strength of his emphasis on the need for an educated ministry, and the fact that he advocated the appointment of deaconesses.

Like the pioneers, Main rejected the distinction between clergy and laity.

There was no special ministerial class or caste. There was not for many years after the apostolic age anything like the modern distinction between clergy and laity. Above all, it must be noted that there was no sacerdotal class, claiming to have exclusive right to exercise priestly functions. This idea was derived from the priesthood of the Old Testament, and was illegitimately transferred to the New. All Christians are priests unto God, and offer up spiritual sacrifices, (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Jesus Christ himself is now our sole Priest in a sense, other than that belonging to all Christians; he is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). The pretensions of modern [176] sacerdotalism are false, unscriptural and even blasphemous in that they transgress on the prerogatives of our Lord.¹⁶⁴

Consonant with this position, he went on to argue that there was no justification for Christians distinguishing between secular and religious vocations.

The Scriptural view is that happy domestic life, the ordinary life of the labourer, the artisan, or the professional man, is as acceptable to God as is the best which any recluse or cenobite ever offered.¹⁶⁵

Main was utterly opposed to the concept of a hierarchical episcopacy. He was incensed with those claiming apostolic succession, a doctrine "at war with both Scripture and common sense. He contended that there was "not a scrap of evidence" supporting it. "The Apostles as such had no successors".¹⁶⁶ He was no more happy with other bodies that denied sacerdotalism and yet had "a clerical caste with special privileges", who enjoyed the advantage over Home Missionaries of being able to "administer the sacraments". Among the latter he included the Baptists, who distinguished between clergy and laity and called their ordained men "Reverend". His sensitivity at this point, deriving in part from a personal dislike of pretentiousness, and a reaction to criticism of the movement as a body lacking lettered and ordained men, was evident in a comment in 1916:

There are ordained men with pride and exclusiveness enough to sink a Dreadnought . . . who, judged by the test of ability, education, consecration or spiritual results, are not worthy to tie the shoe-lace of some of the men of God whose ministry they deny.¹⁶⁷

Aware that the movement could slip into acceptance of a professional clergy, he warned:

In our judgement one of the greatest calamities which could befall the Restoration Movement [177] would be that it should have attached to it a clerical, professional, or any parasitical class of men, who, misnamed 'ministers' would seek to be 'magisters'.¹⁶⁸

To ensure that the movement would avoid such an eventuality, he discouraged the use even of "Dr.",¹⁶⁹ advice which he followed in his own case. He was even unhappy about using the term "full-time" to describe evangelists giving their whole time to preaching, because it distinguished between these and other Christians, who were also "full-time".¹⁷⁰

As had been the case with the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ from the beginning, Main's opposition to the professional clergy of the denominations did not preclude his recognition of the need and Scriptural support for specialist ministries. He argued that such ministries resulted from a division of labour in the early Church, which led to the delegation of specific duties to appointed persons.¹⁷¹

Following Alexander Campbell, Main distinguished between the extraordinary ministry of apostles and prophets, and the ordinary ministry of deacons, elders and evangelists.¹⁷²

Apostles, as the name signified, were those who were sent. In the New Testament the term referred to "the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus in the company of his disciples", and others, like Barnabas, who were called "apostles" because they were "sent forth" by the churches. The apostles were chosen by Jesus "to be the instruments of founding and guiding the affairs of the church". Their qualification resided in the [178] fact that they had known Christ personally, and could witness to what they had seen and heard. "They were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that their words came with all the force of the word of God," and they "had miraculous powers which helped corroborate their testimony". In the nature of the case, the apostles had no successors.

Main argued that the gift of prophecy in the New Testament was a miraculous endowment of the Spirit. As a consequence of their inspiration, prophets foretold events. They also exhorted and edified the Church. The gift of prophecy was sometimes bestowed on women. Like the apostles, the function of the prophet ceased with the demise of those who made up the early church.

Deacons, unlike apostles, were part of the ordinary, continuing ministry of the Church. As their name implied, they were servants of the Church. In the New Testament "the word was used in a special sense of men holding a particular office in the Church". Main argued that deacons "had charge of the secular affairs of the Church".

They did not rule, that was elders' work (1 Timothy 5:17); they were servants. Their work was honourable and important; not just any man could do it; the qualifications demand faithful men, spiritually minded, the sound in faith, an example in life to others. To serve the Lord or his Church is an honour: "they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 3:13).

Bishops or elders (which Main, as had previous Churches of Christ spokesmen, regarded as the same people in the New Testament) were overseers, pastors, or shepherds of the flock of God. There was a plurality of elder/bishops in each church.

There was no such thing in apostolic days as a bishop with authority over a diocese containing many congregations; one church had, instead, a plurality of bishops (see Acts 14:23; cf. Titus 1:5). [179]

In practical terms, the bishops

had charge of the spiritual affairs of the Church. They watched over souls for whom they expected to give account to God. They ruled (1 Timothy 5:7), yet did not lord it over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:3). They taught (1 Timothy 3:2).

The church's welfare was seen to be dependent on the fulfilment of their duties by the elder/bishops. While Main maintained that "it would be wrong to say that there cannot be a church after the New Testament pattern without an eldership, he did insist "that there cannot be a church Scripturally and fully organized without an eldership".

In justifying the office and role of the evangelist, Main reiterated the traditional apologetic. He argued that, while "evangelizing was not the prerogative of a few members of the church, or a work from which others were excluded", it was clear that "some were so devoted to this work as to derive from it the distinctive name of "evangelist". The evangelist's responsibility was to preach the gospel.

The converts made through the preaching he would baptise and gather together, encouraging them to observe the things the Saviour commanded (Matt. 28; 20), and to attend to the worship appointed for their spiritual good. He would naturally care for this congregation or church until elders and deacons were appointed.¹⁷³

There were some within, and without the movement who argued that the evangelistic office was exclusive to the New Testament era, and had been subsequently phased out. Reasons offered in support of this opinion were that the evangelist of the Apostolic Church had been given special Spirit-given gifts to carry on his unique ministry, and as such gifts had been withdrawn, once the church was established, the role of evangelist had also ceased. To these arguments Main [180] replied:

The reasoning is hardly cogent. The work of an evangelist is as necessary today as it ever was, and must be done: he who is devoted to it, who makes it his life's work to evangelize or proclaim the good news of the gospel, is an evangelist.¹⁷⁴

While remaining opposed to the notion of a clerical caste, Main was concerned that men with "good natural ability" be drawn into the ministry. He argued that a "good head" was also necessary.¹⁷⁵ While he frequently pointed out that spiritual development was more important than intellectual attainment,¹⁷⁶ he was equally insistent on the fact that this did not mean that there was any premium on ignorance.¹⁷⁷ Education and culture were as important as natural endowment. He considered that "it would be a terrible thing for Christianity if the impression were to get abroad that the only way to save faith was to neglect culture". He further argued:

To divorce education and faith is fortunately impossible; to make the attempt would be to adopt a policy of suicidal tendency. The religious world greatly needs an increased number of consecrated preachers and leaders who in education and culture are not one wit behind the best which the universities are now producing.¹⁷⁸

In his position as Principal of the College, Main recognized the need for strong and informed leadership. He wrote in 1935:

The clamant need of Churches of Christ in Australia is a greater number of consecrated preachers possessing gifts sufficient for the task of being leaders of thought in the great centres of population and of making an adequate impact upon the life of the community.¹⁷⁹ [181]

If reaction to the clergy of other communions caused Main to stress the traditional aversion to a clergy/ laity distinction, his recognition, as Principal of the College and Brotherhood leader, of the need for gifted and educated preachers, and the effort he put into training them at the College, fostered a professionalism scarcely distinguishable from the clericalism¹⁸⁰ of the denominations.

In sympathy with Ewers, and in contrast to Dunn, Main encouraged the work of women in the churches. He went as far as countenancing the appointment of deaconesses, whose presence in the New Testament he regarded as "highly probable".¹⁸¹

While endorsing the doctrine of ministry set forth by the pioneers of the Australian Churches of Christ, Main encouraged two trends that had begun to develop in the previous era. These were the enhancement of the role of the evangelist and the sharing of women officially in the ministry of the churches.

d. Worship

On the subject of worship, Main, during the years 1914-1939, in treating the distinctive emphasis of Churches of Christ, sought to underline what they held in common with other Christian groups. He gave consideration to the nature and elements of worship. In dealing with the latter, he touched on mutual edification, and gave attention to the Lord's Supper.

According to Main, to worship God is to reverence and adore him. It is both a privilege and a duty. Worship is acceptable when it is offered in spirit and in truth. This involves true inward reverence that is "in accordance with the nature of God and our true relations with him as at once Spirit and Father". It should not be the result of human authority, urging or instruction, which often entails a degree of [182] superstition and "will-worship". Furthermore, true worship glorifies God, and not men, although our relationship to our fellow humans has a bearing on its genuineness.¹⁸²

While Main held up this worship ideal, he was not unaware that people came to church for reasons other than to worship God. Factors influencing attendance were "weather conditions, the social status of adherents, the eloquence of the preacher or the personality of the preacher's wife" and the efficiency or otherwise of the choir or organist". For Main it was important that such factors be recognized, and that a deliberate effort be made to concentrate on and worship God.¹⁸³

Main stated that elements in the corporate worship of the Church of the New Testament were prayer, praise, teaching, the opportunity to financially contribute to the work of the Church, and the Lord's Supper.¹⁸⁴

Main contended that the necessity, and helpfulness, of prayer had been taught by Jesus through precept and example. Furthermore, while secret prayer was encouraged, a special promise was attached to united prayer (Matt. 18:19, 20). Prayer was part of the worship of the early church, and engaged the Spirit and understanding (1 Cor. 14:14, 15). Regarding the substance of prayer, Main wrote:

Prayer was generally offered to God the Father (Eph. 3:14) in the name of the Lord Jesus, in harmony with the Saviour's words (John 16:23, 24); but sometimes petitions were addressed to the Lord Jesus (Acts 7:59, 60; cf. John 14:13, 14 R. V.).¹⁸⁵

Praise was offered individually and corporately. In the latter case it was, Main argued, often "sung in common". Hymns, like prayer, "were to come from the heart, and were to be intelligently sung". While addressed to God, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs [183] "also help in the comfort and edification of men."¹⁸⁶

Main contended that the teaching, given in the early church, included the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures and oral instruction, particularly that given by the inspired apostles and prophets. In commenting on the latter, Main was careful to add that, while "the gift of prophecy was Possessed by women (1 Cor. 11:5); yet women did not teach in the church (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12)".¹⁸⁷

Main laid emphasis on the fact that the committing of one's substance to the work of the Church was an act of worship. It was "a way of honouring God and a method of worshipping him".¹⁸⁸

According to Main, the Lord's Supper was a memorial feast instituted by Jesus, which, in the early Church, was celebrated weekly. More specifically it was a solemn commemoration of the Lord's death and passion, a symbol of the ultimate union of those who believe in him, and an impressive acknowledgement of their engagement to be his. Participation in the Supper was a privilege granted to all Christians by the head of the Church. Its due use, and administration, was one of the marks of the true catholic Church, and it could not be neglected without grievous loss and danger, and was to be freely available each Sunday for all Christians.¹⁸⁹ Furthermore, no special ordination was required of those administering the Supper. Commenting in 1918 on a recent rule of the Victorian Methodist Conference to allow home missionaries to administer communion, Main wrote:

What man, or conference, or denomination, or church council, has an atom of right either to give or to withhold the said privilege. The Lord, whose table it is, has alone the right to decide questions pertaining to the Supper's administration . . .¹⁹⁰ [184]

It is interesting that Main, in First Principles, when speaking of the elements of worship, made no mention of mutual edification. It had fallen into disuse around the turn of the century. Although the conference of 1918, "believing that mutual edification is a Scriptural principle", strongly recommended churches to preserve the practice, there were few wanting to revive what Main described as "the atrocities of 25 years ago". The principal reasons offered for the demise of the practice, besides such atrocities, were the willingness of businessmen to leave edification of the church to the preacher, the monopolizing of the pulpit by preachers, and the desire of many "to be like other people".¹⁹¹ Commenting on the tacit philosophy of ministry underlying the practice at the popular level, Main pointed out that the Body of Christ was not all mouth, and that it was not a Scriptural principle that every man had an inalienable right to teach and exhort.¹⁹²

Main's serious and deeply devotional nature, which was evident in his reverent handling of the Scriptures, was also present in his attitude towards worship. Christ, whom he was anxious to exalt, both tutored people in worship and was its object. He instituted the Supper as a memorial celebrating his death, which was seen to be the means whereby the world could be saved.

e. Summary

Main's treatment of the distinctive doctrines of the Australian Churches of Christ concentrated on the movement's soteriology and theology of ministry. The reason for his giving time to the former, in which he refined and defended traditional tenets, was that [185] evangelistic successes had led to criticism of the doctrine of baptism as preached by Churches of Christ. In the area of ministry, Main, while detesting what he regarded as clerical privilege and pretension, sought to raise the educational and cultural level of evangelists, and to encourage the movement to give them greater respect and consideration.

6. CONCLUDING COMMENT

The years 1914-1939 were a period of theological reconstruction. Many of the changes that occurred in the earlier era, some of which had even then begun to be supported by appeal to the Scriptures, were more carefully considered and restated by Main. This did not mean that change was arrested. Interest in the question of Unity increased, as did the movement's acquaintance with broader ecumenical initiatives to which they became increasingly committed, at least verbally. In his restatement, Main questioned and rewrote certain of the movement's presuppositional guidelines. He witnessed the demise of the practice of mutual edification, not without a certain relief. Changes continued to be evident in the movement's practice and theology of ministry, which included a continuing enhancement of the role of the evangelist, and recognition of the fact that women had a place in the ministry structures of the Church, even if they were at this stage still excluded from the male domain. Throughout, Main's emphasis was Christocentric in intention, although this did not always show through in his consideration of each issue.

[OLFB -186]