Chapter 4
A More Articulate Theology

1. INTRODUCTION

In the pioneering era the theology of the Australian Churches of Christ was relatively unsophisticated. By 1990 their distinctive beliefs were being more thoroughly articulated. This was due mostly to the fact that, during the years 1939-1990, Churches of Christ were drawn increasingly into dialogue with other Christian groups.

In contrast to the Main era, when the membership of Churches of Christ almost doubled, the period after 1939 showed a gradual and continuing decline that was only arrested in the late 1970's. The Jesus' Revolution, the Charismatic Movement, and the introduction of Church Growth concepts within Churches of Christ led to a renewed enthusiasm.¹

Two other developments need to be noted. The first was that during these years conference structures continued to be developed. Though the concept of local autonomy was still stressed, and was a practical reality, Conference Committees, especially those in which a number of functions were co-ordinated, were taking increased initiatives.² The second development was a renewed emphasis on unity, an issue that precipitated considerable theological conflict through this period.

It has been much more difficult to assess the dominant theological influences during this period than in the previous two. Certainly no-one exercised anything like the influence of A. R. Main, and few wanted them to. While Main continued as Principal of the College, and Editor of the national paper, into the late thirties and early forties, his dominance had begun to be challenged, though not overtly. He in [187] fact, had been responsible for this state of affairs, by producing, through the college, a number of educated leaders, who became increasingly restless under the restrictions they felt he placed on the expression of opinions that differed from his own.³ However, while no one person succeeded to the dual responsibility of Principal and editor, two men stand out as particularly influential. This influence resulted from their intellectual ability and the positions they occupied. The two men were E. L. Williams and A. W. Stephenson.

E. L. Williams was chosen because of the influence he exerted over generations of students during a thirty-five year College ministry. He was the most articulate, and perhaps theologically honest, advocate of the movement ever in Australia. With manly courage, a robust mind and a willingness to match words with action, Williams led Churches of Christ into ecumenical encounter. Reasons for singling out A. W. Stephenson for special mention were his influences as editor of the Australian Christian from 1941 to 1950, as lecturer at the College of the Bible, and then as Principal of the New South Wales Bible College (Woolwich) from 1950-1969, his affinity with Thomas Campbell, and the lead he gave in ecumenical dialogue in New South Wales.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY

From the beginning, the theology of the Australian Churches of Christ was based on a conservative understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. The challenge to this epistemology, resulting from the new methods of biblical interpretation, introduced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, was averted by Dunn, who assured the movement that it had nothing to fear from the critics, who were divided [188] among themselves and would be answered by archeological confirmation of the biblical record. The churches, trusting his judgement, were steered around the periphery of the controversy. The challenge of the new approaches continued to be played down by Main.

By 1980 most church members were still unaware of the insights of the biblical scholarship of the past one hundred years. A number of ministers, however, had been introduced to the issues in their college training. In addition, they were affected by secular worldviews, the basic presuppositions of which accorded with the approach of the scholars. Despite this acquaintance, few leaders within Churches of Christ accepted the approach of the more radical schools of biblical interpretation. Certainly, none ventured into print. Had they done so, they would have been regarded with great suspicion by many within the movement, who continued to regard expression of even slightly radical opinion as tantamount to a denial of the faith.

That there was an almost complete absence of mention of the conclusions of the more radical scholars in the writings of the movement was also due to the fact that, from the beginning, Churches of Christ had regarded the essence of Christianity as a personal relationship with God, who was expected to speak through his word. Even where the more adventuresome within the movement may have been inclined to accept views that differed considerably from the conservatism of Churches of Christ, they continued to express themselves in a devotional mode that conveyed an impression of conservatism.

While the epistemology of the movement, during the period 1939-1980, could still be spoken of as conservative, there was a considerable body within Churches of Christ that was more conservative than the rest. The opinions of this group were represented [189] by G. R. F. Ellis and Dr. J. H. Jauncey. The conservative strand of the traditional apologetic was persuasively argued by Rex Ellis who was first a faculty member of Kenmore Christian College (Queensland), and, from 1976, Principal of the Churches of Christ Bible College at Woolwich (New South Wales).

Ellis began with two a priori assumptions. The first was the existence of a kindly God who wanted to reveal himself to men. The second was that this God intended the Scriptures to be simple and intelligible. Ellis also argued that the Scriptures claimed to be the word of God. He contended that the Old Testament prophets were convinced that they were bringing the word of God, a claim that Jesus had endorsed. Furthermore, Christ had given pre-authentication to the New Testament, promising the apostles that they would be guided by the Spirit of God, who would remind them of all he had said and guide them into new truth.

The central emphasis in Ellis' approach was his contention that it was God's intention to deposit with his people a written explanation of his covenant relationship with them. He drew attention to the fact that, when treaties were drawn up between a conquering empire and a defeated nation, provision was made for depositing the treaty document in the temple of the god of the empire. This "authoritative document was to be consulted if any problem arose" and "was to guide all the relations of the two nations". Ellis went on to argue that the depositing by Moses of the two tablets of stone in the Ark of the Covenant "set the pattern for the idea of an authoritative writing that was to be the final court of appeal for all that pertained to the relationship between God and man". He contended that this idea was expressed in Romans 3:2, where the Jews were described as the custodians of the oracles of God. Quoting Acts 7:38, [190] Jude 3, 1 Timothy 1:11, 6:20, 21, 2 Timothy 1:14, 2:2, Titus 1:3, and 1 Corinthians 4:1, he went on to contend that "God's word is still deposited in his sanctuary, the Church, as the authoritative statement of God's covenant with Man".⁴

A similar approach was taken by Dr. J. H. Jauncey, inaugural Principal of Kenmore Christian College (Queensland), who advertised Kenmore in terms of its "outspoken stand on the infallibility of the Word of God". In an elaboration of his viewpoint in Why We Believe, Jauncey argued that the fact of biblical inspiration and authority was based on three factors. The first was Christ's attitude towards the Scriptures. For Jauncey the witness of Jesus was decisive.

If he is God, he cannot be wrong. Since he is the source of all knowledge and truth, whatever he says on any subject is final. Faced with this, all other factors such as historicity, reasonableness and credibility become insignificant. Reason and research have their place, but they are not to contradict anything that Jesus says, only to build on the foundation he lays. He must be prepared to accept the apparently incredible on the basis of his naked Word alone.⁵

The second argument advanced by Jauncey in favour of his claim that the Bible was authoritative was that the witness of the Holy Spirit,⁶ operating through the judgement of the Church,⁷ testified to their being inspired. The third argument was the fact that those attuned to God intuitively recognized the authority of the Scriptures. Speaking from his own experience, he argued that when he put his faith in Christ he knew.⁸ Jauncey considered that the Bible was verbally inspired, but rejected the concept of mechanical inspiration. [191]

God did not dictate the Bible as a boss does to his secretary. Instead he used the individual minds and distinctive styles of each of the writers. This is evident throughout the Bible and lends colour and humanity to everything that is written.⁹

In Jauncey's view the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures was analogous with that of the person of Christ.

In both there is a union of the divine and the human without any interference with each. The result of the God-man relationship is the sinless life of Jesus. The product of the mind of God and the mind of man in the Bible is an inspiration of the Scriptures in which God's truth shines, unimpaired by the human medium. Thus we can be equally certain of the deity of Christ and the divine origin of the Bible.¹⁰

A more middle-of-the-road attitude towards the question of the origin, nature and authority of the Scriptures was advanced by Stephenson and Williams.

Stephenson, influenced by Kant,¹¹ argued that as "truth, in its highest forms, lies beyond the reach of the range of the human mind",¹² it has to be revealed. The record of this revelation, the Bible, is concerned with God's mighty acts, his dealings with men and women, and his activity in the realm of history, particularly his "judgements on evil men and on wicked nations".¹³ Those denying the inspiration of the Scriptures do so at their own peril.

To consider the books of the Bible as the work of men and to treat them as men would the literary creations of human writers, denying their heavenly origin, is a sin against the Holy Spirit, as this attitude cuts both the individual and those he may influence off from information about the way of salvation.¹⁴ [192]

It was Stephenson's contention, influenced by Robertson Smith, that the veracity of the Scriptures, and, in particular, the New Testament, was guaranteed by the reliability of the oral tradition that underlay the written record. This oral tradition had been influenced in its formation by the Apostles and been taught by catechists like John Mark. He disagreed with the Form Critics, who contended that the sayings of Jesus and the records of his deeds first circulated as separate units of tradition. He argued that the main body of tradition that circulated in early apostolic times was already loosely organised into a coherent whole. Furthermore, the accuracy of this tradition, and the written record, was guaranteed by the testimony of eye-witnesses. Stephenson argued:

The claim of the form critics that the oral tradition was some nebulous set of ideas which may change with the needs of the church, and so become the product of the church's imagination, was not in harmony with the type of oral tradition that existed in the early church. The teaching of Jesus that prevailed in the Christian community was so reliable that when Dr. Luke examined it, he found it accurate in every detail.¹⁵

Like Stephenson, Williams argued that the final authority for religious people was God.¹⁶ While God had not left himself without witness in nature, history and man's aesthetic, moral and religious experience, a more adequate revelation was given to Israel.¹⁷ The culminating revelation and final [193] authority was Christ.¹⁸ Williams went on to point out that "Christ is known to us authoritatively only through the records of the New Testament," which, given under inspiration, was a universal and objective authority.¹⁹

Williams argued that the Israelites accepted the claim the prophets made to be bringing "the Word of the Lord" because of the quality of their message, and because of the fact that it was confirmed by subsequent events. He maintained that the authority of the Bible was something inherent, and that its inspiration and authority were experienced, rather than claimed directly.²⁰ Christians accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative because they led to Christ. They accepted the New Testament because the Spirit confirmed his word in their lives, and because the New Testament witness was consistent with the experienced Christ.²¹ It was his view that "the divine word leads us to faith in the divine Lord, and the divine Lord leads us to faith in the divine word".²²

For Williams, therefore, the Bible stood "in the unique position as the primary witness to the fact of revelation". Preserved first through oral tradition, when "the community was the mediator of the facts", the record was later written down. A selection of authoritative documents was then made by the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was behind the witness of the New Testament writers, and behind the selection of the books of witness.²³ The test of any doctrine, therefore, was its consistency in principle with what came through that witness.²⁴ [194]

Williams addressed himself to the claim made by many within the movement that the Bible was the Word of God. He argued that there was an acted and communicated Word of God. The Bible, written later, was a witness to the acted and communicated word. Beyond these, and their source, was the living word, the incarnate Christ.²⁵ He was the primary Word of God.²⁶ The Scriptures, the Christian's objective authority, were thus

the written record of the Word that came, or the written record concerning the historical event in which the Word came, or a record of the life, teaching and acts of the Word who came, or an interpretation of the event and the Word.²⁷

Williams felt that such an understanding of the relationship of the Scriptures to the Word would help Christians avoid the subtle temptation to bibliolatry.

Williams recognized that the statement that authority and interpretation were experienced rather than directly claimed would not satisfy those who would only be convinced by objective proof. To meet this criticism, he pointed out that, although "there can be no purely objective check upon the nature of the external world"²⁸ (the world beyond an individual's perceptions), the principle of coherence, which is used to check information received through the physical senses,²⁹ can also be used to check the objectivity of moral and religious judgements.³⁰ He went on to argue that the objectivity of Christ can be established by the test of coherence. [195]

The four gospels cohere in their picture of the historical Jesus and in their interpretation of Him as more than man. This coherence is maintained in the Acts and the Epistles.

This did not mean that the New Testament created Christ; he created it.³¹ "Christ stands at the centre of the Bible, and its objectivity, truth and authority are checked and guaranteed by coherence with Him".³²

While recognizing that "the church, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, had played a part in the formation of the Bible",³³ Williams could not agree that "the witness of the church as given in tradition" was "equally authoritative with the Bible". To those who asserted that "the church was before the New Testament, and that the authority of the Scriptures rests on the authority of the Church", he pointed out that the Church was produced by the facts of revelation, and that "these facts were before and beyond the Church". They were first preserved orally, the written word being merely "a new and later form of preservation". He concluded that

though the Church authorized the books which won a place in the New Testament, it did not derive its authority from the Church, but from the facts which it preserved.³⁴

It was his view that acceptance of "any kind of absolute authority in the Church through tradition commits us to an undue subjectivism".³⁵

Recognizing that he could be criticized by those outside Churches of Christ for inconsistency at this point, because of his endorsement of the traditional insights of the movement, Williams replied that, while he may quote the pioneering [196] leadership of Churches of Christ in support of points, he did not accept their views as infallible. Such traditions were not to be regarded as a fetter, but rather "as a framework of reference". He went on to emphasise that these very traditions brought Churches of Christ "back to revelation as the ultimate ground of appeal".³⁶

Over recent years a number within Churches of Christ, influenced by the style of relational theology popularized by Keith Miller, Bruce Larson, John Powell, and Lyman Coleman, have argued that the Bible is true because it is reasonable in the sense of being in harmony with psychological realities. The foremost exponent of this view has been Dr. Keith Farmer. Farmer, who lectured part-time at the Churches of Christ Bible College at Woolwich, and at the College of the Bible in Melbourne, was appointed Principal of the New South Wales College in 1981.

Farmer argued that "disproportionate time and effort" had in the past been spent "gaining the correct sense of a passage, and of Scripture as a whole" and that more time should be given to "demonstrating its reasonableness". He pointed out that man was not made for the Scriptures, but that the Scriptures were made for man. Knowing what would facilitate man's happiness and growth, God laid down sound guidelines and structured enabling environments to promote both. Farmer's premise was that Christianity, God's penultimate revelation, is "primarily a personal relationship" and its authority resides, not only in the fact that it is God-given, but also in the fact that it works.³⁷ [197]

While the views of Ellis and Jauncey have been distinguished from those of Stephenson and Williams, when compared with the wide range of beliefs in the church at large, concerning the reliability and the authority of the Bible, they can be seen to differ little from each other. Nor is Farmer any less conservative. However, while continuing to be conservative, the attitude of Churches of Christ to the Bible was more carefully articulated in the years 1939 to 1980 than previously. It can be argued, on the basis of a statement drafted and agreed to by representatives of divergent opinion within the movement in 1969, that the approach of Churches of Christ to the Scriptures was slightly more relaxed (even liberal) than had earlier been the case. This statement spoke of the Bible being the record of the activity of God in the world, and of its becoming the Word of God to those who were obedient. It read:

Jesus Christ is the Living and Supreme Word of God. The Scriptures (both the Old and New Testaments) are the Word of God in that they are the inspired record of what God did and said, particularly in Jesus Christ, and in that they are God's means of revealing himself and his purposes to mankind. The Scriptures are particularly the Word of God to those who are obedient to what God is saying and co-operative in what God is doing.³⁸

3. UNITY

From 1939 to 1970 (if not 1980), the most contentious theological issue within the Australian Churches of Christ was unity. It was during these years that the movement associated itself more closely with broader ecumenical developments. While those committed to unity were enthusiastic, a considerable number were thoroughly alarmed. The opposition, which arose from fear that proponents of deeper [198] ecumenical involvement were willing to compromise the evangelical faith and traditional restoration understandings, expressed itself in accusations and events. The centre of the opposition to ecumenical involvement was in New South Wales, though it was by no means confined to that State.

There were at least two major external elements that caused Churches of Christ to give concentrated attention to the question of unity during this period. First, they were influenced by the climate of unity within the broader Church, and, in particular, developments that resulted in the formation of the World Council of Churches. Second, social and political factors also played a part. The Depression and Second World War demonstrated that the Church and society were inextricably bound together and that the Church ought to be more responsible than it had been for alleviating hardship and opposing injustice. This was only possible if the churches were more in sympathy with each other and more willing to co-operate. As the century proceeded it became increasingly obvious that to survive in a secular world, whose security was threatened by belligerent nationalism, aggressive Communism and resurgent paganism, the churches must give more attention to the question of unity.³⁹

Several internal influences also contributed to the increased attention given to the question of unity. The first was the fact that Churches of Christ, by 1970, had developed, from a small inward-looking nucleus convinced that it had a monopoly on the truth, to a vigorous, outward-looking communion which recognized its oneness with other Christians, and which was aware of its social and political responsibilities. The [199] major internal influence, however, was the impassioned advocacy of unity by enthusiasts within the movement. While Dunn, and later Main, encouraged the movement to guardedly welcome Australian and worldwide ecumenical developments, it was left to T. H. Scambler to actively promote the issue of unity. Scambler, who studied at Drake University in America, and the University of Melbourne, was Principal of the College of the Bible from 1939 until his death in 1945.⁴⁰

Scambler encouraged the movement to be honest about past failures, including the disposition to judge others harshly and the refusal to credit them with honesty.⁴¹ He also argued that, imagining that one had a monopoly on the truth, which had been a characteristic of Churches of Christ, betokened a sort of narrowness of vision and littleness of soul that was responsible for the persistence of division.⁴² He maintained that new truth was always breaking forth from the Word. He attacked the cherished conceit that had for years kept Churches of Christ from serious ecumenical encounter. He also strongly questioned the idea that, if they waited around long enough and continued to broadcast their message, the Christian world would accept their interpretation of what constituted New Testament organization, polity and forms of worship.⁴³ His most daring statement, in an article written as early as 1916, was that the movement's "plea for Christian union is a recognition as Christian of all who sincerely love and serve the Lord Jesus, whether they coincide with us [200] in doctrine or ordinances or not".⁴⁴ On the basis of this, he urged fellow members "to cultivate a fraternal spirit towards all the children of God".⁴⁵

When Scambler died of a heart attack in 1945, E. L. Williams took over the role of principal advocate of Christian Unity. Williams was thoroughly committed to the ideal of unity. This was evident both in his practical ecumenical involvement,⁴⁶ and his writings.⁴⁷ His exposition of the plea of Churches of Christ was the most thorough-going ever attempted within the Australian movement. [201]

Williams, in line with the traditional approach of Churches of Christ, lamented the fact that Christians, worshipping the one Christ, were separated from each other by the existence of their independent denominations, whose traditions had assumed the dimensions of truth, and whose prejudices were readily rationalised into principles.⁴⁸ He could not blame those scandalised by a divided Church for regarding her as irrelevant.⁴⁹

To those who argued that division was inevitable, because there were "situations in which it would be wrong not to separate", Williams replied that the New Testament writings regarded division as contrary to the will of Christ.⁵⁰ He went on to argue that

there is a difference between separation from the unbelieving world and separation from believers in spite of the fact that there are deep differences between those who believe.⁵¹

Williams also argued that the pioneers of Churches of Christ, in protest against division, had been stimulated by an ideal drawn from the New Testament,⁵² which found its fullest expression in Christ's prayer that the Church should never fall from the unity he envisaged.⁵³

Williams regarded the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 as a manifest oneness.⁵⁴ It was a oneness, which, resting on the basis of a spiritual and Spirit-given unity, should manifest itself in a oneness in name, ordinances, organization and ministry.⁵⁵ This inner and outer unity, which were not separated in the New Testament, constituted the ideal.⁵⁶ Expanding this [202] view, he argued:

The Church universal may find expression in some kind of organisation that has world reach, but it is essentially a fellowship of a believing, worshipping, witnessing community whose faith, hope and new life are centred in the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.⁵⁷

Consistent with the emphasis of the pioneers, Williams contended that unity can only be expressed visibly through a restoration of the simple, plain Christianity, which finds approval in the New Testament. He believed that there was a "pattern for the faith, worship and life of the church". By this he did not mean that there was "a blue print complete with all details". There were, however, principles, precepts, and precedents, by which the Church was to be guided, which were clearly revealed.⁵⁸

Williams considered that one of the most important features of the approach of Churches of Christ was the principle of catholicity their plea enshrined.⁵⁹ It was his view that Churches of Christ emphasized a catholic Christ,⁶⁰ whom no group could claim as their monopoly. It was through obedience to this catholic Christ, mediated "in the catholic witness of the New Testament," that the Church would "realise the unity for which he prayed",⁶¹ Williams argued that the adoption of New Testament names and practices, such as the name "Church of Christ," and the practice of believer's baptism, would also facilitate unity.⁶²

Consistent with the traditional apologetic, Williams argued that "division has largely resulted from human innovations". While agreeing with the need for development, ("the Church in the Apostolic period [203] was not a finished product"),⁶³ and that "the guidance of the Holy Spirit must be real and continuous within the Christian community",⁶⁴ he went on to argue that "anything that is contrary to what is approved by the New Testament," and thus inconsistent with what the Holy Spirit has already given, "is a divisive and in-admissible human innovation".⁶⁵

Williams acknowledged that, while Churches of Christ in the beginning had been a voice in the wilderness, this was no longer so.⁶⁶ This did not mean, however, that their unity emphasis was no longer relevant, particularly as "the ecumenical movement has put forward no particular plan for unity".⁶⁷ For this reason, Churches of Christ should not surrender their initiative, but humbly place their insights and understandings at the service of the whole Church. To do this they needed to maintain the tension between unity and restoration. The latter was important because "Christian union is union on the basis of Christian truth".⁶⁸

Williams also urged fellow members to recognize that Churches of Christ was a movement. If they were "to become static and make their own existence an end in itself", they would "become a denomination in a sense contrary to all their ideals".⁶⁹ To avoid this, Churches of Christ should regard themselves as "seekers after truth rather than possessors of all truth".⁷⁰ Such a position allowed for, and fostered, the sort of originality that could be described as "a readiness to re-think, re-state and re-orient in the light of changing conditions and situations". In Williams' view, [204] this originality was "part of the ideal of being a movement".⁷¹

Williams was convinced that Churches of Christ had a mission to other Christian people. They were bound to make their witness to them through the pulpit, press and personal contact in a friendly, courteous, positive and humble attitude.⁷² They would best witness by life and spirit.⁷³

Often criticized by those who misunderstood his motives and questioned his integrity, he went on to point out that Churches of Christ needed to encourage scholarship among their leaders, and then trust these adequately to represent their opinion in church councils.⁷⁴ He argued that the realization of unity would involve responsible compromise before it could be fully and satisfactorily consummated. In explanation, he pointed out that division was a compromise that some Christians have regarded in certain circumstances as a responsible compromise. It was his view that to remain in separation, when a changed situation has led to the appreciation of a greater measure of truth, which is capable of drawing a group out of separation into unity, is an unjustifiable compromise. He stated that he would be willing to countenance a union that provided for baptism according to different understandings and convictions, "provided that no minister would be required to 'baptise' an infant if it were against his convictions and provided that, without prejudice, any member could pursue a change of conviction within the fellowship, and, provided that any plan of union be not regarded as the ultimate".⁷⁵ [205]

Because of such statements, there were those within Churches of Christ who felt that E. L. Williams would have happily sold the movement out. Such a view would be contradicted by even a casual perusal of his A Biblical Approach to Unity, which reveals a deep commitment to, and thorough understanding of, the unique plea of Churches of Christ. In his approach to the ministry and sacraments, areas most investigated by heresy hunters, he was thoroughly orthodox. What probably confused, and alarmed some, was the fact that his exposition of the plea was couched in concise and studied language. It was not sufficiently interlaced with traditional shibboleths. More importantly, the conservative Restorationist wing considered his "responsible compromise" suggestion unorthodox and unacceptable.

In conclusion, it needs to be pointed out that Williams regarded the essence of Christianity as "loyalty to Christ". All loyalties were valid only as they were expressions of loyalty to him, in obedience to the cardinal command to follow him. The crux of this loyalty was devotion not definition, and its proof was Christ-like-ness.⁷⁶ However, the community of those loyal to Christ, for the expression of its corporate life, required form and structure; but organization and institution should be instruments of life, means not ends. The life was the essence. If life was central, then growth and change were necessary to ecumenical advance.⁷⁷ Williams was in thorough agreement with the statement of the 1952 Faith and Order Conference at Lund, which concluded:

We cannot build the one church by cleverly fitting together our divided inheritances. We can grow together towards fullness and unity in Christ only by being conformed to Him who is the Head of the Body and Lord of His people.  . . We cannot manifest our unity and share in His fullness without being changed.⁷⁸ [206]

While Stephenson was not as deeply involved in ecumenical encounter as Williams, which was not unrelated to the fact that he spent his mature years in New South Wales, it was a passion with him, and his theological contribution in this area deserves mention. His unique emphases were evident in a number of areas.

First, influenced by Thomas Campbell, Stephenson argued that the Church, though "torn by sectarianism", was already "at heart one". So as not to be misunderstood, he went on to emphasize that his point was not that the Church "was, or shall be, one, but that it is one".⁷⁹ He was careful to explain, however, that he was not espousing the idea of an invisible Church.

Such teaching pushes the problem of unity back into a vague realm, and it tends to ignore the need of unity in the visible church. While there is truth in the thought that the saints of the previous ages belong to the church, and this may suggest an invisible side in the church, still the unity of which Campbell spoke was not confined to the invisible aspect, but must be identified with "the church of Christ upon earth". The visible church is one and it must manifest that unity.⁸⁰

For this unity to be revealed to the world, existing denominational organization would need to be dismantled. This would not be easy. It would threaten departmental organizers, whose livelihood depended on "the success of the denominational work". Property interests, and trusts accumulated to support the projects of denominations, would also need to be surrendered. Failure here would challenge the Church's loyalty to Christ, and would be seen as the Church allowing the [207] love of money to interfere with Christian unity.⁸¹ Stephenson did not exclude Churches of Christ from this self-surrender, and pointed out to fellow members that it was only by an acknowledgement of their own failures, and a willingness to give all to Christ, that unity would be realised.⁸² Among these failures, was the inability of some within the movement to rise above legalism and parochialism. For this reason, Churches of Christ needed to cultivate broader sympathies and greater tolerance towards those differing from them.⁸³

While Stephenson spent considerable time talking about the way unity could be achieved, it was his explanation of the form that the re-united Church should take that constituted his most significant contribution in this area. This contribution included negative as well as positive comment.

The negative emphasis was Stephenson's rejection of the super-Church idea. He pointed out the obvious impossibility of gathering all Christians into "one large assembly". He was no more enamoured of the idea of a vast organization designed "to compel or induce unity within the Church" and the suggestion that this should be based on a universal acceptance of apostolic succession was even more abhorrent.⁸⁴ In such a monolithic [208] body the emphasis on organization would take precedence over fellowship.⁸⁵

In a more positive vein, Stephenson argued that unity, while it could not be based on behavioural ethics, because the lives of Christians were far from perfect, and no such imperfect base could provide a suitable foundation for the Church,⁸⁶ should be founded on a shared experience of loyalty to Christ, a loyalty which expressed itself in action.⁸⁷ He went on to argue that this unity would be revealed to the world by the way Christians acted towards God, each other and the pagan society. It was his opinion that the unity that made such

a deep impression on the ordinary men and women of the Roman world.  . . was not a sentimental bond of agreement merely, but a vital unity that was expressed in vigorous attacks upon heathen customs and the pagan social order, (and) in practical deeds that amazed the self-seekers of the day.⁸⁸

Organizationally this union found expression in fellowship among Christians at the local level. This was paralleled by the voluntary association of congregations on a district basis. Like Thomas Campbell, Stephenson visualised "numerous local churches throughout the land, each society of Christians welcoming the others and cooperating in the work of the Lord". Their "bond of unity" was

to be found in their identity of life and purpose fashioned by the common obedience of all Christians to the authority of Christ: for under such conditions all disciples will be perfectly joined together in the same mind.⁸⁹ [209]

Through the advocacy of men like Scambler, Williams, and Stephenson, Australian Churches of Christ were encouraged to affiliate with the World Council of Churches, and to enter into conversation with those bodies that were in the process of becoming the Uniting Church in Australia.⁹⁰

Despite the energy and enthusiasm of Churches of Christ leaders keen to press the issue, nothing further came from this initiative. Three factors were involved. First, Uniting Church personnel who were holding discussions with both Anglicans and Churches of Christ representatives, indicated that they wanted to proceed to union before opening up new negotiations. Second, many within Churches of Christ were reluctant to countenance anything beyond informal negotiations.

While those advocating unity were enthusiastic over the increasing involvement of Churches of Christ in ecumenical affairs, a considerable section of the movement was thoroughly alarmed. This alarm surfaced first in differences in viewpoint, and style, between Main and Scambler. In 1916 Main had taken Scambler to task for arguing that others should be recognized as Christians though their views did not coincide with those of the movement on the questions of baptism and the Supper.⁹¹ It was obvious also in accusations made at the 1938 Federal Conference that the College was producing students with "decidedly modernistic conceptions of biblical interpretations". It was suggested that Conference should recommend to the College Board of Management that they

take every reasonable step to assure themselves that all regular lecturers in biblical and doctrinal subjects at the College.  . . shall be fundamentalist rather than modernist in their [210] view of biblical interpretation.⁹²

Though not mentioned by name, Scambler was the obvious target. Several years later New South Wales set up their own State College at Woolwich, to ensure that biblical faith and restoration traditions of the movement were preserved.⁹³ Suspicion that the College of the Bible at Glen Iris was becoming increasingly "liberal' persisted, and in 1947 the College of the Bible faculty was accused of departing "from many doctrinal beliefs which have been so long accepted as the basis of the New Testament Church".⁹⁴

By 1950 it was obvious that not only in New South Wales, but also in Victoria, there were groups prepared to contend, almost to the point of division, for the older conservative restoration position. In 1950 Keith MacNaughton, minister of the Swanston Street Church, argued that participation in the World Council of Churches, with which Churches of Christ had become affiliated in 1946, was inconsistent with their plea. He contended that the basis of membership of the World Council opened the door to all religions, and he was unhappy with the involvement of the Eastern Orthodox, whose priests were being trained with money given for the rehabilitation of Europe. He was deeply concerned about the unsettled attitude of the Council to Rome, the mother of harlots", and by the control of the Council by Modernists.⁹⁵ Three years later a group of Victorian conservatives formed an Evangelical Fellowship to propagate the old Restorationism and combat Modernism within Churches of Christ.⁹⁶

New South Wales, while watching developments in Victoria, continued with action of its own. In 1950 [211] the New South 'Wales Conference withdrew at State level from the World Council.⁹⁷ There were many in New South Wales who believed that the basic division within Christendom was between "those whose sole faith was in the Bible and those who rejected whole, or part, or add to it"⁹⁸ and that association with the World Council committed the movement to liberalism. A motion presented to the State Conference in 1959 to reaffiliate was lost.⁹⁹

New South Wales was also in the forefront of opposition to the introduction to Churches of Christ Sunday Schools of Christian Education material prepared by the Joint Board of Christian Education (of the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational Churches) in conjunction with the Federal Board of the Australian Churches of Christ, and New Zealand Anglicans.¹⁰⁰ They were convinced that cooperation would involve the dominance of the liberal elements.¹⁰¹

In 1966 Queensland was drawn into the debate. Dr. J. H. Jauncey, inaugural Principal of Kenmore Christian College, which had been established against the opposition of the Federal College of the Bible, and the Federal Conference, but with the support of Woolwich, [212] in 1965,¹⁰² published an article in the Queensland Christian Echo and in the Australian Christian, which alleged a "brotherhood decay". He argued that this was evident in "letters to the Australian Christian criticizing the Bible, doubting baptism by immersion, ridiculing the restoration ideals, and even sympathizing with communist aggression".¹⁰³

Because of tensions generated by the debate over unity, a Federal Consultation on Christian Unity was called for 1968, at which the leadership of the Australian Churches of Christ admitted to a significant theological cleavage within the movement, resulting from "honestly held convictions".¹⁰⁴ Recognizing that emphasis on differences was detrimental to the unity of the movement, a second Conference in 1969 focussed on agreements.¹⁰⁵

Opposition from within Churches of Christ to the movement's affiliation with the World Council of Churches, to union initiatives aimed at bringing Churches of Christ closer to other Christian groups in Australia, and to the alleged "liberalism" of the College of the Bible, while vigorous, did not lead to formal division. Furthermore, since the late 1960's, the furore over unity has largely subsided. This has been due to moderation of New South Wales' opinion, the development of what was [213] seen by New South Wales to be a more conservative mood in Victoria, and the decision of the Uniting Church in Australia not to open up further negotiations. Additional factors were the removal of the question of unity from centre stage within Churches of Christ by the deliberate policy of the Federal Christian Union Department, which sought to raise issues by looking at the Churches of Christ heritage, and thus to "mark time", and a revival of confidence in the Church's relevance and mission.

Churches of Christ in Australia were committed to unity by the formative emphasis of the Campbells. They have been committed also to the restoration of New Testament Christianity as the means of its fulfilment. Tensions between these two emphases have been evident from the beginning. They have become more obvious with the deliberate prosecution of the ecumenical ideal by its advocates, and the resulting reaction on the part of arch-conservatives. However, while opinion has tended to polarize the membership, the fact that Churches of Christ are agreed on a broad range of issues has meant that the movement has avoided formal division.

4. THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

a. The Priority of the New Testament

The Australian Churches of Christ through the years 1939-1980 continued to emphasize the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, and to argue that the latter was the final authority for Christians. As in the two preceding periods, this issue was not developed beyond Alexander Campbell's initial statement, which had been taken up and endorsed by the pioneers of the Australian movement. This was evident in Williams' position.

The religion of the Old Testament was Judaism, while the religion of the New is Christianity. The former was a religion of law, while the latter is a religion of grace. Judaism was characterized by precepts, while Christianity is characterized by principles. The law was a tutor to bring men to Christ. Under the law people were servants, school children, immature; while in Christ we are sons [214] The authority of the Old ended with the death and resurrection of Christ. Nothing in the Old Testament is binding on Christians unless it be restated in the New Testament.¹⁰⁶

In the pioneering era the Australian Churches of Christ argued that the New Testament furnished the pattern of Church Government that was clearly revealed, and which was intended to be reproduced as the ecclesiological model throughout the entire history of the Church. This view, in its more extreme form, began to be questioned during the period 1864-1914, when it was argued by some that the New Testament furnished "principles" of Church Government, rather than a complete pattern. This view gained increasing acceptance during the years 1914-1939. During the period under review it gained the ascendancy.

While Williams still spoke of a "pattern for the faith, worship and life of the Church", he did not have in mind "a blue print complete with all details," but rather a pattern of principles, precepts and precedents.¹⁰⁷ Stephenson was even more explicit. Agreeing with Williams that the New Testament did not furnish a "blue print" of church government, he contended that it provided only principles by which to guide the Church to meet new situations. Furthermore, he argued:

While some in the Australian Churches of Christ may find every detail of Church Government in the New Testament.  . . the great majority (held that they) must be guided by the general principles which the early Christians followed.¹⁰⁸

A further development, a swing from a backward to a dynamic, forward-looking approach, was evident in 1968 in the comment of G. R. Stirling, Vice-Principal of the [215] College of the Bible, that

Christians, in humility and self-surrender, and guided by the Holy Spirit (should) discover together in prayerful study of the Scripture, what is the mind and intention of Christ for the Church in our day.¹⁰⁹

All were not happy with such an approach, however. Many in New South Wales continued to reaffirm their belief in a primitive New Testament pattern of Church organization.¹¹⁰

While the belief that Christians were governed by the New, and not the Old Testament, was merely restated in the period 1939-1980, the notion that the New Testament furnished definitive guidance for the setting up of Church organization underwent development.

b. The Question of Interpretation

The pioneers had argued that the Scriptures do not need interpreting. Influenced by the approach of the Campbells, Dunn and Harward had contended that one needed to approach Scripture interpretation rationally, paying attention to linguistic usage, cultural factors and the nature of the situations addressed. Main reinforced this view. A further development was evident in the period 1939-1930, when Williams and Stephenson argued that the views of the scholars should be seriously considered. Both were influenced by F. D. Kershner's contention that, in his Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell had urged those following his lead to charter a mid-way course between traditional denominational exegesis and the vagaries of uninformed opinion.¹¹¹ [216]

Putting such a view, Williams argued that where there were difficulties of interpretation, the common mind of "consecrated, qualified scholarship" should be sought. This was not necessarily a unanimous mind, nor was its verdict absolute. It was only immediate, and relative, and needed to be constantly reassessed against the Scriptures, the ultimate authority.¹¹² To those who saw no difference between accepting the authority of the common mind and the authority of the Church, he replied:

The difference is quite apparent if the authority of the Church be accepted as an absolute--an alternative to the Scriptures. The common mind is always based upon and subject to the Scriptures. It is never in any sense an addition or an alternative. It is a relative tied to an absolute. But in so far as we accept the Church as the bearer of an authoritative interpretation, the common mind is the expression of the interpretative tradition within the Church.¹¹³

First set forth explicitly in the 1940's, the view that the scholarship of the Church at large should guide individuals in interpreting the Scriptures did not meet with wide acceptance. As time passed, however, it made sense to an increasing number within the movement.

b. Facts and Opinions

The distinction Alexander Campbell drew between facts and opinions had been used by the pioneers and succeeding generations of Churches of Christ spokesmen to separate basic New Testament teaching from speculative theory. Campbell had argued that it was possible to unite upon the "facts" of Scripture, facts clearly described (such as the fact "that Christ died") and clear statements of Scripture interpreting such events. Theories that went beyond what was given were not to be regarded as normative.

In the period 1939-1980 Williams, who gave great [217]

attention to this pre-supposition, sought to further refine Campbell's distinction between fact and opinion. He argued that it was difficult, if not impossible, to secure agreement on what constituted what Campbell had defined as Scriptural facts. There were no universally accepted criteria for deciding whether theories were Scriptural or of human invention.¹¹⁴ Furthermore, he contended that such facts as are universally agreed upon needed to be pieced together into a coherent whole and then applied to life situations. In both processes there was room for difference of opinion.¹¹⁵

Approaching the issue in the 1950's, Williams concluded that the simple distinction between essentials and non-essentials was inadequate. He went on to argue that the distinction between fact and theory was no more helpful, because of the difficulty in working out what interpretations were to be considered as "facts", that is, clearly set forth in the Scriptures, as distinct from theories which were merely human interpretations.¹¹⁶ He also treated the distinction the pioneers drew between faith and opinion, which he similarly regarded as inadequate, because it threw one back on the distinction between essentials and non-essentials,¹¹⁷ He did, however, modify the terms of this definition. He argued that, if opinion was related "to matters not clearly established as facts, or facts not connected to salvation, or facts not given by commandment", and if faith was seen to "consist of clearly established facts connected with salvation, or coming to us under commandment",¹¹⁸ then the distinction between faith and opinion was workable.¹¹⁹ [218]

In endorsing this distinction Williams did not intend proscribing theory altogether. He argued that the propagation of private opinion ought to be permitted where it was obvious that "originality serves progress, and liberty serves unity".¹²⁰

c. The Use of Creeds

The pioneers rejected creeds and theologies. In the period 1864-1914 it was explained that it was their use as tests of fellowship that was objected to, and the distinction was drawn, particularly by Dunn, between biblical and speculative theology. Main continued this stress, and argued that it was not necessarily the content of creeds and theologies that was objected to. In the period 1939-1980, while creeds and theologies were still objected to as tests of fellowship, their value to the Church through the ages was increasingly recognized.

Both Williams and Stephenson acknowledged the value of creeds as educational aids. Putting this view, Stephenson argued:

While no authority ought to be given to credal statements, still a study of them ought not to be neglected, as they set out the efforts of many scholars throughout the ages to grasp some of the problems of Scripture.¹²¹

Williams also contended that creeds, in summarizing essential beliefs, had helped preserve the faith and unity of the Church.¹²²

Stephenson argued that theology, like creeds, was a useful educative tool. His point was that "books on doctrine that teach the truth of the Bible in ordered form can help young disciples understand the significance of God's will".¹²³ Stephenson also contended that the task of theology, the synthesis of biblical knowledge, is something which Christians [219] naturally do. To dismiss it as irrelevant or unnecessary is to fly in the face of experience. His argument ran:

It would be foolish for us to say that we are prepared to accept the facts of the universe that Einstein considers, and then to ignore his theory. Unless we are able to present a better theory to account for the facts, we must humbly acknowledge the theory of relativity as an adequate explanation of the material universe.¹²⁴

Williams agreed with Stephenson. He argued that while theology had only relative value, and, while "denominational confessions reflect theological deductions", theological formulation was "perfectly natural and legitimate".¹²⁵

Despite the positive approach of Stephenson and Williams to theology, it was not accepted by some as a legitimate exercise, even as late as the 1960's. This was evident in the half-apologetic tone of an article published in the 1961 Christian, in which it was argued that, while

many people try to divorce theology and Christian living as if theology were an accretion both unnecessary and undesirable . . . theology is so built into the whole structure of Christian living that you cannot have one without the other.¹²⁶

d. Summary

Developments in the areas of the movement's presuppositional guidelines during the period 1939-1990 included acceptance of the fact that the Church is to be guided by the principles behind the New Testament expression of the Church, the suggestion that in biblical interpretation the consensus of qualified, consecrated scholarship should be seriously considered, refinement of the distinction between essential and non-essential beliefs, an increased [220] recognition of the educative value of creeds, and a strong plea for the acceptance of theology as a legitimate, even necessary exercise.

5. DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES

a. Salvation

During the years 1939-1980 the soteriology of the Australian Churches of Christ witnessed considerable development. While traditional understandings remained intact, refinements and shifts of emphases on the issues of faith, baptism, and regeneration were made in response both to ecumenical dialogue and a style of pragmatism associated with the insights of the behavioural sciences.

In the period 1864-1914 Ewers had argued that faith was more than intellectual assent to a dogma. It also involved commitment of the emotions and will. During the years 1939-1980 Stephenson was concerned to make the same point. Like Ewers, he argued that Alexander Campbell's view of faith was too coldly intellectual, and that while belief was "based on an intellectual rational judgement" that could not be shaken by new and contrary evidence, it also involved an emotional response leading to commitment. Thus it was only when an individual committed his life to Christ that he could say that he had faith in him.¹²⁷ Stephenson argued that the emotional response on which commitment to Christ was based arose from the recognition of an emotional identification with certain of Christ's attributes. He explained:

When we have faith in a man we perceive certain qualities and values in his character; and appreciate these so much that we identify in some degree, our life with his.

Those characteristics in Christ, which created faith in him, were "purity of life, truth of teaching, willingness [221] to die for others, and a demonstration of his power over death".¹²⁸

During the period under review Williams gave considerable attention to the question of baptism. He was keen to answer the charge that Churches of Christ were literalist in their attitude towards baptism, to oppose the idea that Spirit baptism was the only important baptism, and to suggest that Churches of Christ should be willing to enter into a responsible compromise on the issue of baptism in the interests of unity.

In response to the criticism that Churches of Christ were literalist in their approach to baptism, Williams drew a distinction between essential exactness and exaggerated exactness. He argued that literalism was a form of exaggerated exactness. It lacked spirit, and went beyond the essence of the matter and the principle involved. He contended that on this basis one should "readily discredit as literalism the insistence that baptism should be in the Jordan, or in a stream or natural pool, or that the Lord's Supper should be held in an upper room". He went on to ask whether it is "exaggerated exactness to insist on a form evidently given because of an appropriateness that is clear to all". Illustrating this with reference to the fact that "the serpent rather than the dove is the symbol of guile, and that the deer is the symbol of fleetness rather than the snail", he went on to conclude:

Is not the act of immersion the appropriate symbol of death, burial and resurrection? Are not essence and principle involved in the appropriateness of immersion as the act of baptism? We would judge that this is the case of essential exactness or true symbolism rather than exaggerated exactness.¹²⁹ [222]

Williams was also keen to reply to those who argued that Spirit baptism was the essential baptism, and so whether or not one was baptised in or by water was unimportant. In response to this assertion he contended that the "one baptism" spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:5, and commanded by John as an initiatory rite,¹³⁰ was not Spirit but water baptism. He argued that "baptism by the Spirit" was "an act of God rather than an act of obedience by man. Referred to first by John the Baptist, and promised by Jesus, the baptism of the Spirit occurred on the Day of Pentecost, and was later repeated in the house of Cornelius.¹³¹ While there is no command to be baptised in the Spirit, water baptism was commanded, and it was through this act of obedience that individuals personally entered into the experience of the Pentecostal Spirit-baptism.¹³²

While distinguishing between Spirit and water baptism, Williams was careful to point out that he was not denying that there were inner and outer aspects of baptism. He argued that baptism was more than mere immersion in water. It was also baptism into Christ. His point was:

When the phrase has been used "baptism unto remission of sins", it has always been an elliptic statement carrying with it the understanding that it is baptism into Christ which is unto the remission of sins. Baptism into Christ means that at the heart of the whole process there is the committal to Christ in the sense of relying on him as Saviour and obeying him as Lord.¹³³ [223]

Williams went on to argue that immersion in water 'was simply the outer side of baptism, its symbolic aspect and outward witness. On the inner side of baptism was "death to self, burial in Christ, and rising to walk in newness of life". The distinction Williams made between inner and outer baptism made it possible for him to argue that one was able to experience the inner change without the outer, and to admit that the inner may be spoken of as essential in a way that the outer may not. He contended that it was on this ground that Churches of Christ recognized as Christians those who had not observed the outward form of baptism, or had observed it incorrectly, according to the movement's understanding of the New Testament, but whose lives bore witness to the inner side of baptism.¹³⁴

The distinction between the inner and outer aspects of baptism, which was influenced by Brunner's emphasis on the personal nature of the Christian experience, enabled Williams to suggest that Churches of Christ could possibly be willing to responsibly compromise and enter into unity with others. His point was that there was the possibility of their agreeing to a union that allowed for the exercise of different forms of baptism, provided that they were able to practise their own and provided also that those who had been baptised as infants, and who wanted to be "re-baptised" as repentant believers, were allowed the opportunity of doing this. However, the fact that Williams agreed that the inner and outer aspects of baptism could at times be separated, does not mean that he saw this as the norm; nor did he regard it as desirable. His contention was that [224]

While both in thought and life we may separate the outer from the inner, in the New Testament they are put together in a complete whole. This is the ideal, and for this we must bear witness in word and deed. As we find the inner and the outer bound together in the one whole we also find faith, repentance, confession and baptism placed together in a whole. What God has joined together let not man put asunder.¹³⁵

Williams' contention, that the inner and outer aspects of baptism could be separated, represented the kind of attempt many leaders within Churches of Christ were making to express theologically their acceptance of the believing unimmersed as Christians, and to formulate a basis of agreement between Churches of Christ and non-immersionist bodies on the question of baptism. It was also related to internal challenges to the movement's soteriology.

The British pioneers were in no doubt about the response required of prospective converts. These were commanded to believe the gospel and be baptised. The picture was early confused in Australia, however, by the introduction of the practice of inviting those under conviction to make a public confession of Christ by walking to the front of the meeting at the conclusion of the service to publicly declare their belief in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour. While there was no doubt in the minds of those first introduced to the practice by the American evangelists, that it was at the moment of baptism that regeneration took place, by the mid-twentieth century the issue was clouded. As in many congregations, baptism had by then come to be separated from the public confession by a period of instruction, the question had to be asked, when precisely an individual was regenerated--when he confessed Christ or at baptism? The fact that Churches of Christ, from the late 1890's, came increasingly to recognize active members of other communions as Christian gave weight [225] to the view that it was at the moment of confession that the process of rebirth commenced. As a consequence, the movement was divided on the issue, some strongly defending the old position, and others arguing that regeneration occurred at the moment of one's trusting acceptance of Christ, a position normally associated with the Baptists.

While Churches of Christ, through the years 1939-1980, have been more willing than previously to openly acknowledge that the believing of other communions are regenerated, they have continued to strongly oppose infant baptism. The way in which this opposition was expressed has varied.

Stephenson, like Dunn, was utterly opposed to the doctrine of original sin, which he considered underlay the practice. The idea that children were born tainted with Adam's sin, and sharing his guilt, was an idea that was abhorrent to Stephenson. Guilt was personal, and as children could not sin before the age of accountability, before their knowledge and internalization of the law, they could not be held morally responsible for their actions before that time, nor did they have any guilt to remove. Stephenson contended that the doctrine of original sin led to a "materialistic approach" to baptism and to the idea, evident in the baptism of dying infants, that baptism has some "magical efficacy or "magical quality". According to Stephenson, the grounds for salvation "are not in the material substance used as the medium but in the act of faith involved in performing the required action".¹³⁶

Williams, like Stephenson, rejected infant baptism but approached the subject from a different angle. He argued, on the basis of his contention that true baptism [226] involves both its inner and outer aspects, that infant baptism is inadequate, and far removed from the true baptism of the New Testament. He wrote:

In the nature of the case it is simply the application of water to the body. There is only the outer side fulfilled. Even with a mature person it is possible to have the outer without the inner, in which case the baptism is not complete or true. There is no magical power in the mere application of water, however correct and elaborate the outward observance may be.¹³⁷

In the response Churches of Christ made to the Uniting Church in Australia's Basis of Union, they argued that infant baptism made too little of the individual response called for in baptism. While baptism celebrated the facts of the gospel, it also pointed to man's response. It was the view of the movement that baptism was an act of incorporation into Christ. It was an act of putting on Christ, and of rising to walk in newness of life. While they argued that there was a "dynamic and growing faith" that followed baptism, they believed that this was a growth "from (personal) faith to faith" rather than a growth from no faith to faith. In their view, personal faith should accompany baptism at all times. To the argument that confirmation confirmed, or validated infant baptism, they replied:

We recognise that for those who accept infant baptism "confirmation" must be important, because the act of baptism by the Church can only be completed by the response of faith associated with "confirmation". But we believe that baptism contains in itself all that "confirmation" seeks to express. Thus we would understand that baptism is the effectual sign that God gives the Holy Spirit to each member and not "confirmation".¹³⁸

While Churches of Christ continued to oppose infant baptism throughout the period 1939-1980, a [227] number became increasingly aware that their theology of childhood was seriously underdeveloped. Though they had argued, from the beginning, that children before the age of discretion were in a state of innocence, they said little beyond this. It has only been in very recent times that the leadership of the movement has addressed itself to this issue. Several tentative suggestions have been made. Williams, following Brunner, has argued that while children are not in the Church, they are nevertheless under the Covenant of Grace.¹³⁹ Others have wanted to go further and contend that little children, being still very much under their parents' influence, are part of the community of faith. This situation is seen to continue up until the time that they either decide to commit themselves publicly to Christ or else deliberately take themselves out of a relationship with both Christ and his Church. Many Churches of Christ congregations have introduced child/parent dedication services. While officiating ministers point out that such services are not equivalent to baptismal services, and that the emphasis is on the commitment of the parents to tutor their children in Christian understandings, and to encourage them to commit their lives to Christ, this trend is evidence of the fact that Churches of Christ are feeling that they need to grapple with the question of the precise nature of the relationship between children and the community of faith.

The debate within Churches of Christ on the relationship of baptism to regeneration has revealed a shift of emphasis from the outward act to the inward change. This was most evident in treatment of the concept of rebirth that appeared in a recent book Your Church: Where to from here? The author, Graeme Chapman, minister at Dawson Street, Ballarat, argued [228] that, when Jesus said to Nicodemus that he needed to be born again to see the kingdom of God, he was using an arbitrary metaphor.

While the birth analogy in no way exhausts the significance of what God does with us when he develops us into new beings, its is a particularly apt description of the process.¹⁴⁰

Chapman went on to draw parallels between physical and spiritual birth, which included such elements as conception, pregnancy, birth, nurture and sibling rivalry. His main thesis was that since rebirth is the result of the Spirit's germination of the Word of God in the womb of the soul, when individuals are reborn they are in a real, and not merely metaphorical, or even adoptive sense, the children of God. He has sired them, and they share his life.¹⁴¹ The focus, within the treatment, on the period of gestation, unintentionally supported those who argued that regeneration was not explicitly connected with the physical act of baptism. It was a developing process antedating the actual administration of the ordinance.

In the early years Churches of Christ had argued that individuals wishing to respond to the gospel should believe, repent, confess their sins, publicly acknowledge Christ, and be baptised, because this was the response the teachings of Jesus and the experience of the early Church demanded. In the period 1939-1980 several leaders sought to support this position by arguing the reasonableness and appropriateness of such a sequence of responses. They argued that faith, repentance, confession and baptism were important responses, not so much because Christ had commanded them, and because an individual's positive response committed him to action, but rather because they developed within the person the necessary psychological conditions that allow God scope to work in the life. Faith was seen to be essential "no so much because God has stipulated that (it) is a necessary [229] pre-requisite for the appropriating of salvation, (but because) the trusting and surrendered attitude is necessary if God is to change our natures".¹⁴² Repentance was also seen as "essential to the realisation of God's intentions". The argument ran:

As our attitudes are dependent on the way we think, an altered direction in our thinking, which is what repentance is all about, is necessary to the process of transformation.¹⁴³

It was further contended that Jesus encouraged a public confession of himself, not because he would be "piqued by disloyalty into promising retaliation, but because he knew that he could only work on those definitely committed". Public confession was also necessary to continuing growth.¹⁴⁴ It was further argued that baptism was important because of its symbolic value, admittedly better understood in New Testament times, because it helped individuals appropriate what it was intended to secure. Furthermore, in baptism, conviction, "which may have grown slowly or arisen cataclysmically", is confirmed and sometimes clarified. As a physical action "representing death and rising to a new life", baptism had psychological value "in allowing the person a greater possibility of experiencing and accepting the cleansing and forgiveness that Christian faith teaches is available".¹⁴⁵

During the period 1939-1980 the Australian Churches of Christ, while continuing to reiterate the central soteriological emphases of the pioneers, developed new approaches, particularly related to the connection between baptism, regeneration and salvation. While such were associated with internal tensions that needed to be resolved, these new theological initiatives were also related to formal and informal dialogue Churches of Christ were having during the period with other Christian bodies. [230]

b. The Church

During the years 1939-1980 Churches of Christ in Australia further refined their ecclesiology. This was largely due to the fact that Williams gave attention to the issue. Stephenson, on this issue, represented the opinion and fears of those concerned about a possible loss of congregational autonomy.

In the beginning Churches of Christ, in outlining their theology of the Church, had done little more than emphasize the autonomy of local congregations. During the period 1864-1914 the question of the legitimacy of Conferences, and the relationship of Conferences to local congregations, had to be worked through. During the years 1914-1939 Main filled out the movement's doctrine of the Church by emphasizing ecclesiological understandings common to the church at large. Williams took this approach one stage further, and set forth a holistic view of the nature and function of the church that took account of traditional understandings, and which was influenced by democratic ideals.

Williams argued that the Church was a "called-out community". It differed, however, from the called out people of God in Old Testament times. While there was continuity, involving the calling of God and a faith response, there was also "radical discontinuity". The Church, built by Christ, lived under a new covenant. Entrance to the Old Covenant was by birth and to the New by rebirth. The Church, unlike the Jewish nation, was "a gathered community" that lived and grew by "personal choice and conversion". Its initiates were introduced to a new ethic, ideal, standard and Spirit.¹⁴⁶

Williams also contended that the Church was also "a fellowship based on loyalty to Christ". It was "a fellowship of those who are united in one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism under one God and Father of all". This fellowship was both an organism [231] and an organization. The latter was inevitable, because of the fact that life always expressed itself in some form of visible organization. Williams then went on to argue that the organization of the Church should express its essential unity. The idea, that the unity of the Church was something of which only Christians were aware, he rejected. He contended:

The picture of the Church as presented in the New Testament is something visible. Its unity is something which, being seen, will convince the world. The Church is a fellowship which expresses itself in a variety of visible ways. While there is an invisible church in the sense that God only truly knows his own, the Church is a manifest body. The invisible church is not primarily the Church. Unity in an invisible church is no substitute for the manifest unity of a believing, worshipping and witnessing community of new life in Christ.¹⁴⁷

Williams also laid stress on the fact that the New Testament Church was "a democratic organization". It was his conviction that "Christ's emphasis on the worth of the individual, and the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, stand as pillars of democracy in the Church". He went on to point out that while the apostles, especially Paul, exercised an oversight over the early churches, "it was not an over-lordship, for there is ample evidence of democratic procedure". It was this democratic element, Williams argued, that underlay the emphasis Churches of Christ placed on the autonomy of local congregations. Explaining his position, he wrote:

We believe that the Church in apostolic times was not a hierarchy, but a democracy of believers; that it was not patterned after the Hebrew temple and its rituals, but rather after the synagogue with its simple service and democratic organisation. The local congregation is the legislating and governing unit. No central organization exercises any jurisdiction over the local life and activities of a congregation.¹⁴⁸ [232]

Williams contended that the doctrine of local autonomy did not rule out co-operation between churches. In support, he argued that "the congregationalism in evidence in the New Testament was not an absolute independency for there are various incidents of cooperation among the churches in apostolic times".¹⁴⁹ Williams was keen to point out that Churches of Christ had, from the beginning, "sought to hold congregationalism and co-operation in balance, to maintain a tension between irresponsible individualism and overbearing authoritarianism". Local congregations and groups of local congregations were inter-dependent.

As in true community there is at once a preservation of individuality and a sinking of it, so in the community of churches or congregations there is a preservation of the individuality of the local congregations and a sinking of individuality in the interests of the whole. The whole never over-rides the local and the local never ignores the whole, the congregation being conditioned by the consideration of the good of the whole and the latter being conditioned by the rights of the congregation.¹⁵⁰

Broadening the concept yet further, Williams contended that the Church was, in essence, an ecumenical community. His point was that, while it was likely that local Christian communities lived somewhat apart in the early stages, they soon drew together, developing into a universal brotherhood. There were a number of factors responsible for this.

Their missionary commission gave them the vision of a world-wide religion. They maintained contact through correspondence and visits. Letters of commendation were necessary to transfer from one community to another. Persecution served to increase the sense of solidarity.¹⁵¹

It was thus in the historical development of the Church [233] that the ecumenical concept of the Church took root. According to Williams, this was an early development, evident in the writings of Paul. Williams gave primacy to the concept of the Church universal of which congregations were local manifestations.

Stephenson, representing the fears of conservatives within the movement, pressed for continuing recognition of the autonomy of the local congregation. The strength of his insistence was related to a fundamental belief in the God-given freedom of the individual, and his conception of the Church as a fellowship of Christians after the pattern of the Roman household.¹⁵² Stephenson, while encouraging "the closest co-operation of churches under the authority of Christ", was quick to draw attention to the dangers inherent in such co-operation.¹⁵³ It was his belief that local churches were free and autonomous and should be wary of "the modern craze to build up a system of control" that would subjugate them to a central authority. The reason for this caution was Stephenson's alarm at what he considered a trend within Churches of Christ to treat the work of Conference committees as more important than the witness of local churches. To Stephenson this was an illustration of the organisation wanting to become master and absorbing the time, energy and wealth of local churches to perpetuate itself. Stephenson went on to contend that, while there were occasions when Conference committees should advise and guide local congregations, no committee had the right to force its opinion upon a free and independent congregation. He went on to argue that co-operation should not be inspired by overhead organisation, but by a love of New Testament truth.¹⁵⁴ [234]

The contribution of Williams and Stephenson to the ecclesiology of the Australian Churches of Christ resided in their re-emphasis of some aspects and their redefinition and development of others. Both were influenced by a philosophy of individualism, and by democratic ideals, Stephenson being more concerned with the former and Williams with the latter.

c. Ministry

Within the Australian Churches of Christ, in the area of ministry, changes in practice have preceded theological development. The latter has been retarded because of the commitment of conservatives to traditional understandings, and the reluctance of those endorsing innovations to arouse the former to stiffer opposition The more innovative have contented themselves with promoting practical changes. This has meant that the theology of the movement, at any one time, was more likely to be found in practices than in official statements, if by theology is meant the way the majority of leaders and members thought about a particular issue. For this reason, development in the movement's theology of ministry during the period 1939-1980 will be treated in the context of the history of the times.

The depression of the 1930's, while it threw a number of ministers out of work, resulted in a further specialisation of their role. The College of the Bible, in raising its entrance standards, became more selective in accepting men for training. Preacher Placement and Advisory Boards found their services in great demand. The 1933 Federal Conference suggested to churches that they should induct newly engaged preachers by means of services "of recognition in keeping with the dignity of their work". In 1941 the College of the Bible began ordaining those graduating students who had received specific calls to ministry in the churches.¹⁵⁵ [235]

It was during the late 1930's and early 1940's that the theological leadership of Australian Churches of Christ began to come to terms with practical developments in ministry structures, which had been underway since the late 1890's. This was evident in two areas--the search for New Testament precedent to interpret present practice, and an attempt on the part of Williams to develop more explicitly the theological arguments that had been advanced, and that lay behind the ordination procedures of the College of the Bible.

The search for New Testament precedent to reinterpret changes in ministry style was evident in the writings of Stephenson and Williams. Both were dissatisfied with the equating of the minister of their day with the New Testament evangelist.

In an article, written in 1939, Stephenson argued that the minister with which the church of his day was familiar was represented in the New Testament, not by the itinerant evangelist, but by the elder who "laboured in word and doctrine", whose appointment was the concern of the whole brotherhood, whose representative he became in the local church.¹⁵⁶ By contrast, Williams contended that there was no one function within the New Testament church with which the present day minister could be completely identified. In the apostolic church specialisation was not rigid, and role functions were fluid. Laying emphasis on the fact that ministry was the responsibility of the whole Church, and arguing that the way that different ministry functions were combined depended on the abilities of individuals, he went on to sketch a general description of the role of the contemporary full-time ministry.

Some will be called to qualify in a special way and live by the gospel, fulfilling the duties of evangelizing, shepherding, organizing and guiding the worship and life of the church.¹⁵⁷ [236]

The American-trained evangelist, T. J. Gore, following Alexander Campbell, had argued that ordination was a Scriptural practice. Dunn was less sure and actively discouraged its development. Main, while agreeing that ordination could be justified from the New Testament, rejected it as a practical possibility at the time. Williams, by contrast, argued that the call of God to a man to exercise a full-time ministry should be confirmed by the action of the Church in ordaining him.

There is clear evidence in the New Testament that when people were called to fulfil certain specific functions in the Church they were set apart by fasting, prayer and the laying on of hands.¹⁵⁸

According to Williams, "the public act of ordination of one who is to live by the gospel is simply a recognition on the part of the Church that one has been called to the ministry".¹⁵⁹ Explaining himself further, he went on:

In this way it blesses him and authorizes him to act as a representative of the community in a particular function. Ordination does not make one a minister. It is the call of Christ through the constraint of the Spirit that gives one his commission He is sent to the Church, having, as Paul put it, received his ministry of the Lord Jesus". His call, however, is "earthed" and made actual by the recognition and call of the Church.¹⁶⁰

Williams recognized that it was "competent for a local church" to do the ordaining. Local churches, however, should avoid precipitate action in ordaining unsuitable men. It was his opinion that they should act with a due sense of responsibility. As he saw it, the call of a minister was to the whole community of congregations, and not to an isolated, local congregation. It was his contention that, as the candidate will pass from one congregation to another in the course of his ministry, proper responsibility for ordaining him can be discharged only by the whole community of congregations. "In his [237] local ministry he will commit the whole community morally and spiritually". In view of these two factors, Williams went on to emphasize the need for consultation and concurrence between local churches and conferences in the calling, recognition, and authorization of ministers.¹⁶¹

The status of the full-time ministry within Churches of Christ continued to rise from the mid-1940's to the 1980's. This was evident from the increasing provision made for the financial security of ministers in the years 1939-1980, the rise in their educational qualification, and the fact that Churches of Christ ministers shared with the professional ministry of other communions an identity crisis in the late 1960's.¹⁶²

The fact that theological formulation frequently followed, rather than preceded, changes in practice was evident in the fact that a Federal Consultation on Christian Unity in 1969 only hesitatingly endorsed the fact that it was legitimate to speak of the full-time preacher "as a 'minister' in a special sense",¹⁶³ a practice that began to be evident among some sections of the movement as early as the late 1890's. The reason for this tentativeness was that conservatives were frequently unwilling to depart from original formulations despite the fact that the latter no longer corresponded to reality.

The tension between progressive and conservative forces was also responsible for considerable difference of opinion over the question of ordination. Many were unconvinced by Williams' arguments, and regarded the process as too reminiscent of priest-craft to be entertained. However, by 1980 most were convinced of the [238] value of some form of service designed to set apart individuals for full-time ministry, even where such was not described as "ordination". At present two basic patterns exist.

First, the initiative may be left to the local congregation. Practice ranges from induction services, in which there is no formal ordination but an unofficial appointment to local ministry, to a formal laying on of hands ceremony in which Conference is represented. Second, in some States graduating students who are to enter upon specific ministries are ordained at an appropriate juncture of the service of graduation, or at a specific ordination service that succeeds it. The action ranges from a simple prayer of dedication to the formal laying on of the hands of persons chosen from local churches, representing both local and Conference interests.¹⁶⁴

Over recent years two further developments in the area of ministry have been evident--the acceptance of women as ministers, and the acknowledgement, on the part of at least some, that factors other than Scriptural precedent have been responsible for ministry styles within Churches of Christ.

The first woman minister, a Victorian educated in Canada, was engaged by the church at Warracknabeal in Victoria in 1971.¹⁶⁵ At that time few were prepared to concede that women were suitable candidates for ministry. The reasons were scriptural and psychological. It was argued that there were no women ministers in New Testament times, and women, operating more from an emotional than a logical base, would not be able to cope with the strains of ministry.¹⁶⁶ While there are those who continue to argue this way, an increasing number have accepted the idea of women in ministry. The College of the Bible has accepted women candidates, graduated them [239] and recommended to the Federal Conference that they be ordained. Over recent years an increasing number have been accepted into ministry. The most enthusiastic advocate of women in ministry has been Dr. Keith Bowes, Principal of the College of the Bible, 1974-1980, Bowes has argued, not only that the New Testament does not preclude women ministering but, in the light of present attitudes towards the participation of women in education, business and community life, principles of the New Testament are best expressed when women are given equal opportunity with men in ministering.¹⁶⁷

In 1977 Graeme Chapman argued that the traditional attitude of Churches of Christ towards ministry was based on more than New Testament precedent. Other less obvious factors were equally, if not more, responsible for the original formulation.

First, there was the prejudice against authority that was common coinage among the artisan class, the employed and self-employed tradesmen and small farmers, who made up the bulk of our early membership. Second, the Campbells, who were in the forefront of our American work and whose writings enjoyed great popularity among our Australian pioneers, argued that the clergy were one of the major obstacles in achieving unity among the churches. Third, those who established our Australian churches were laymen, and as such were frequently treated contemptuously by the clergy of other churches who considered themselves superior. Finally, once established in positions of unofficial authority, prominent laymen jealously guarded their position.¹⁶⁸

Throughout the period 1939-1980 the status of Churches of Christ ministers, both within and without the movement, continued to rise. At the same time, their function became increasingly specialised. Leaders looked again at the Scriptures to justify their role, though they were less concerned than previously with precise equivalents. Ordination, which was not regarded as bestowing any priestly grace, was introduced, though it did not meet [240] with complete approval. Women were accepted, at least by a section of the movement. By 1980 there was little to distinguish Churches of Christ ministers from the professional ministries of other churches, particularly as regards function. The main difference that existed related to the administration of the Lord's Supper.

d. Worship

In the pioneering era Australian Churches of Christ, in outlining their theology of worship, focussed on two elements, mutual edification and the Lord's Supper.

By the turn of the century mutual edification had fallen into virtual disuse. It was replaced by the rostering of morning speakers, which made generous use of lay people. By 1930, and certainly by 1980, the pulpit had become the virtual preserve of the full-time ministry. Laymen were willing to help out in the minister's absence. Over recent years, with the growing emphasis on the use of spiritual gifts, and on inter-generational worship, alternative services, like Worship in the Round and Family Worship Services, have been developed, which call for extensive lay participation, and which in many cases shift the focus from the minister.

The emphasis on lay ministry, which was evident in the practice of mutual edification, persisted in the continuing involvement of laymen, and later, in some churches, of lay-women--in presiding at the Supper, reading the Scripture lessons, and helping distribute the elements.

Throughout the years 1939-1980 Churches of Christ continued to emphasize the importance of the Supper. Williams, who gave attention to the issue, introduced several conceptions that had not been prominent within Churches of Christ. These were concerned with the basis and nature of the Supper.

Williams argued that the celebration of the Supper each week was justified, not only on the basis of the alleged practice of the first century Church, but also on "the conviction that worship is not complete without [241] this act of communion, which bears witness to the personal character of the Christian experience. Williams contended that "the Supper speaks of the personal revelation of God, the personal response of man and the personal reconciliation between God and man". The observance of the Supper was thus the highest act of worship, and the principal purpose for which Christians gathered together each week.¹⁶⁹

In treating the nature of the Supper, Williams emphasized two factors--that it was an opportunity for communing with Christ, and a family gathering.

Williams laid stress on the fact that the Supper was an opportunity for fostering the relationship between Christ and the believer. This did not mean, however, that he was in favour of referring to the ordinance as "The Communion". Recognizing that the expression "Communion" was Scriptural, he nevertheless argued that it should be avoided lest the impression be given that "the breaking of bread" was "the only means of communion with God". Along with earlier leaders, he argued that the ordinance should be described as "the Lord's Supper". The Lord had instituted the Supper, and it was a memorial to him. While he admitted that the expression "the Lord's Supper", in 1 Corinthians 11:20, initially included a love-feast that later fell into disuse, he argued that it was still in line with Scripture to refer to the ordinance in this way.¹⁷⁰

The Australian Churches of Christ had, from the beginning, laid great emphasis on the lay presidency of the Supper. In arguing for this practice Williams stressed the corporate nature of worship. In this understanding, the Supper was

an act of fellowship in which the whole Church as a royal priesthood offers worship. As a fellowship or an act of the whole Church the [242] Supper is not administered to others by one selected person. Rather it is presided over by one member of the family circle. As all Christians are priests under God, any member of the Church who is qualified morally, spiritually and mentally presides over the act of worship and fellowship.

Williams also contended

If the minister be selected regularly to preside over the Table it is not because of any priestly rite ascribed to him but simply that it is thought his training in the conduct of public worship enables him to make the best of this solemn and joyous act.¹⁷¹

The fullest expression of both the individual and corporate aspects of the Supper, as understood by Churches of Christ, was to be found in a statement made by representatives of different schools of thought within the movement in 1969. It stated:

The Lord's Supper is that corporate act wherein the Church in a faith-response participates in the body and blood of Christ, thus sharing in his life, death and resurrection. The Lord's Supper is a thanksgiving, a commemoration, a communion, and a declaration of the death, resurrection and coming again of Christ. The Lord's Supper is an act that we observe each first day of the week as a sign of Christ's continuing presence with his covenant people. The Lord's Supper feeds the people of God so that they grow up together into Christ and are strengthened for their participation in the mission of Christ in and to the world.¹⁷²

Over recent years, due largely to the development of informal worship experiences in which children are actively involved, Churches of Christ have looked into the question of whether or not the unbaptised children of parents, who are members, should participate in receiving the elements of the Supper. Two schools of thought have emerged. First, there are those who would exclude their participation. Expressing their view, Williams [243] wrote:

Without accepting extreme sacramental ideas we should see that the New Testament presents the Supper as something more than a social sharing. There is a vertical as well as a horizontal dimension in it. Not only is it a remembrance but it is the communion of the body and blood of our Lord. The bread and wine on the Lord's Table have a significance beyond that of bread and wine on the meal table. While concerned about the educational process we should see that here as in all life there is an important educational process in the child being made aware of distinctions. The distinction between communicants and non-communicants should not be lightly brushed aside. We also have to face the danger of meaningless participation on the part of young children who commonly do something simply because other children are doing it.¹⁷³

On the other hand, there are others who argue that, because it constitutes the central focus of the worship of Churches of Christ they "are in a position to use the Lord's Supper as an opportunity for enabling children to learn, and if appropriate, experience the meaning of this event". Thus these "see no reason why children who belong to Christian parents and have not reached the 'age of discretion' should be refused the bread and cup, if the parents and child in consultation with the minister agree".¹⁷⁴ The issue is far from resolved.

In the area of worship, Churches of Christ, in the period 1939-1980, continued to emphasize the centrality of the Supper in the morning worship service. Its corporate and familial aspects received added emphasis In recent years the question whether or not children should partake has begun to be debated.

e. Summary

During the years 1939-1980 the distinctive doctrines of Churches of Christ underwent considerable development. The relationship of baptism to regeneration and church membership was considered and the question [244] whether children should partake of the Supper was also touched on. In the movement's ecclesiology democratic concepts came more to the fore, and in its theology of ministry there was, by the end of the period, a much greater acceptance of the professionalism of the minister's role, and, among a lesser number, an acceptance of women ministers.

5. WILLIAMS AND STEPHENSON

Throughout this chapter the views of Williams and Stephenson have been extensively quoted. Before concluding this review of the period 1939-1980 it would seem appropriate to comment in more general terms on their contribution to the theology of the movement.

Lyall Williams thoroughly endorsed the central emphases of Churches of Christ. His studied and robust presentation of the essentials of the plea, which carefully related it to new theological developments, furnished generations of students and admirers with a carefully articulated exposition of the theological position of the movement. Furthermore, in constructing a securer philosophic and theological base to support the traditional position, Williams gave apologists for the movement greater confidence in their stance, and furnished those in other churches interested in dialoguing the Churches of Christ a more adequate theological prospectus.

Despite its excellence, Williams' exposition of the central emphases of Churches of Christ was not always appreciated. There were several reasons for this.

First, he was influenced by Brunner, and other continental theologians, whose style was tersely dialectical. Series of antithetical statements, playing on the nuances of words, tumbled out one after the other. As a consequence, his writings, and particularly his A Biblical Approach to Unity, were not easily read. They required patience, effort and considerable intellectual ability. It is little wonder that he [245] was frequently misunderstood, particularly in a movement suspicious of the intellectual.

Second, as he thought dialectically, it was usual for him to see truth lying in tensions between antitheses. He pointed out the need to maintain these tensions--tensions between restoration and unity, between local autonomy and co-operative endeavour, and between authority and liberty. Living with, and trying to maintain such tensions was threatening to many, who preferred what to them appeared the more unequivocal guidance of clear scriptural statements.

Another difficulty was that Williams sometimes failed to convince his readers of the validity of the distinctions he was making, He sometimes used phrases that appeared to have an obvious meaning and gave them a distinctive, and, to some, esoteric interpretation. This was the case with his definition of the common mind, the consensus of consecrated, qualified scholarship, by which he referred, not necessarily to the majority view, but to the view that the majority acknowledged as being least in doubt.¹⁷⁵

Fourth, because Williams regarded the understanding of truth as a dynamic and continuing process, he stressed the need for originality, a quality that he considered integral to the traditional plea of Churches of Christ. This originality, which he considered a virtue, was regarded by some as a vice, and an indication that Williams had no qualms about departing from the faith of the pioneers. Aware that some felt this way, [246] Williams argued that when

an honest seeker after truth finds difficulties, raises questions and suggests new ideas, and for that reason becomes suspect and in some ways ostracised because he has departed from time-honoured tradition, it is probably the traditionalists who had departed from the genius of our movement rather than he.¹⁷⁶

Despite the fact that Williams was misunderstood and maligned, his influence on several decades of students, and the lead he gave both in Victoria, and federally, helped awaken the movement to the fact that it was committed to unity both by Scripture and its theological genesis. This commitment, for Williams, was a commitment to serious dialogue. His major contribution in this area was in bringing Churches of Christ closer to the ecumenical movement than they had previously ventured. He made a thorough study of the aims and theology of the movement, and represented Churches of Christ at major ecumenical gatherings. In his writings he quoted from Restoration pioneers to emphasise their stress on unity, and from ecumenical identities and councils to underline their accord with the ethos of Churches of Christ. His wide and accurate acquaintance with both enabled him to do this.¹⁷⁷ [247]

While occasionally original in the way he presented aspects of the distinctive doctrines of Churches of Christ, Arthur Stephenson was not a seminal thinker in the broader sense. In some ways, his approach was a mixture of progressive and conservative elements. While he was not afraid to modify presuppositional guidelines, he could introduce emphases, such as a stern denunciation of denominationalism, which, in tone, was uncharacteristic of the movement as a whole at the time of writing.

Christian unity was a major concern for Stephenson. He argued its necessity with ultra-Restorationists, especially in New South Wales, and sought to put the Churches of Christ contribution to ecumenical gatherings. He was a member of the joint working group of the Australian Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Conference. Despite this effort, however, Stephenson did not appear to achieve the success in this area among fellow members that his effort seemed to deserve. There appear to be several reasons for this.

First, while his arguments were always well ordered and passionate, the underlying concepts were not always clearly defined. This meant that he frequently made statements that exposed him to the ire of the purists, whose literalism blinded them to the subtleties he was explaining. Several illustrations will point this up. First, he spoke of the Bible as containing" God's Word¹⁷⁸--a red rag to those who equated the two. Second, he appeared to discount the need for either revelation or salvation when he argued that men, by seeking, could penetrate 'to the heart of the universe" and "enter into fellowship with God".¹⁷⁹ Stephenson at times alienated people because his ideas were not clearly enough expressed. [248]

This fact sometimes gave others the impression that Stephenson was contradicting himself. Several instances will point this up. The fact that he stressed that the tradition of the Church was neither superior to, nor of equal authority with, the New Testament, did not prevent him from arguing that "the Church does not rest upon the truth, but the truth rests upon the Church".¹⁸⁰ He argued that men should not try to unite the Church on the basis of commonly accepted doctrines, yet went on to list essential beliefs, and to speak of "the binding force of a common belief,"¹⁸¹ and the fact that the New Testament Christians were united "in their evangelistic sermon".¹⁸² He pointed out that the Church was a monarchy under Christ,¹⁸³ yet spoke of the democratic principles of Church government without any explicit suggestion that the King had decreed this democracy.¹⁸⁴ Finally, at the same time as he was encouraging the development of great preachers,¹⁸⁵ Stephenson was warning of the potential emergence of the professional clergy.¹⁸⁶ [249]

Because of this lack of precise definition, Stephenson also appeared at times to be guilty of the charges he was laying against others. He criticised the individualism of the Puritans¹⁸⁷ while advocating a similar philosophy himself. When he argued that "it is wrong to form a separate church in order to conform to some divisive doctrinal issue,¹⁸⁸ he could hardly have been realistically considering the history of the movement.

It also needs to be remembered that Stephenson was located for most of his productive life in New South Wales. He was opposed in his ecumenical sympathies, and involvement, by the Restorationist wing of the movement, which moderated his enthusiasm and restrained his utterances. Also, in New South Wales, Churches of Christ were a smaller communion, both numerically and in terms of the percentage of the church-going population, than was the case in Victoria and South Australia, where strong ecumenical leadership was given.

Despite an apparent lack of success in arousing the New South Wales membership to a greater concern for unity, Stephenson's effort was not wholly in vain. He did keep before the churches the irenic vision of the elder Campbell, and shared this vision with the students he taught. It may well be seen, in retrospect, that Stephenson's greatest contribution to the realising of the dream of Thomas Campbell, and to ecumenical endeavour, will be the influence he had on several decades of students who trained under him.

6. CONCLUSION

The period 1939-1980 witnessed considerable theological development within the Australian Churches of Christ. The major focus was on unity. Advocates and opponents of deeper ecumenical involvement kept [250] the issue alive, especially between 1939 and 1970. In its epistemology the movement, by contrast with other Christian groups, remained relatively conservative. Presuppositional guidelines were further refined, while Churches of Christ, in working through their distinctive doctrines, were forced to come to terms with tensions, which, if they were not obvious from the beginning, were at least latent. Close association with other groups also made it necessary for them to define their distinctive doctrines in the light of rival explanations. This was particularly the case with baptism, and with their theology of ministry, where they were deeply influenced by the practice of ministry in sister communions. [251]

[OLFB 187-251]