Postscript.

When Churches of Christ were first established in Australia in the late 1840's and early 1850's they were a small, anti-clerical, inward-looking nucleus, who were convinced that they alone were in possession of the truth. By 1980 they had grown into a vigorous, outward-looking communion, spiritually at one with other communions, and aware of social and political responsibilities. However, despite this development Churches of Christ did not succeed in their major objective--re-uniting the Church on the basis of the beliefs and practices of the apostolic era. There were a number of reasons for this failure.

First, the nature of their plea, despite its appealing simplicity, was an inhibiting factor. It produced internal dissension, and, misunderstood by outsiders, often exacerbated relations with established communions.

Internal tensions developed in a number of areas. First, the twin emphases, Restoration and Unity, which were meant to complement each other, were sometimes seen as opposed aims. Their relationship became strained in the 1950's and the 1960's, when arch-conservatives interpreted the actions of those encouraging serious ecumenical dialogue as a sell-out of the truth for the sake of advantageous mergers with larger and more prestigious bodies. The movement was also beset with tensions arising from confusion over the way in which presuppositional guidelines were to be interpreted. This was most obviously the case with the movement's claim to speak where the Scriptures speak, and to be silent where they are silent. Some argued that they should speak only where there was a direct command or example, while others considered that they were free to innovate where there was no expressed prohibition. The movement faced a similar problem with the distinction between essentials and non-essentials. There was disagreement over what were to he regarded as essentials. [252]

If members of Churches of Christ were confused over the movement's stance, outsiders were even more so. Misunderstanding the nature of the plea, or uncertain about the integrity of Churches of Christ, they were often alienated. This was evident in the fact that other churches considered that Churches of Christ, in suggesting that interpretative bias be avoided, were wanting the area cleared so that their own interpretations could be accepted as normative. Furthermore, while Churches of Christ considered that the argument that they were without a creed would have considerable appeal, those who were meant to be impressed were not convinced, and interpreted this claim as evidence of the unintelligent position of the movement.

While claiming that they were creedless, in the sense of not requiring a prospective member's acceptance of credal propositions, Churches of Christ have adhered to certain distinctive doctrines, deviation from which barred the way to membership. Baptism was the prime example. Such doctrines, constituting an unwritten creed, have frustrated union initiatives. The suggestion of Williams that he was willing to responsibly compromise, and countenance a situation in which different baptismal traditions were practised and advocated, was unacceptable. Many within Churches of Christ felt that he was going too far, while paedo-baptists were not attracted by a proposition that they considered, if accepted, would be a tacit denial of the validity of their position.

The basic psychology underlying the movement's approach to truth has been of equal importance in hindering association with other groups. In this regard, it is significant to note that (within Churches of Christ) those who have disapproved of the Charismatic Movement have been opposed as much to its emotional appeal, which they have felt to be out of sympathy with the rational-intellectual ethos of Churches of Christ, as [253] to its challenge to traditional understandings. A second factor responsible for the movement's failure to achieve its aim was the fact that it was established as a new communion in a predominantly secular environment, where it was regarded as an upstart movement by other Christian groups. Furthermore, it was not easy for Churches of Christ to escape the reputation they early acquired as a fanatical proselytizing sect that thrived on controversy.

Despite the fact that Churches of Christ did not realise their vision, they contributed to ecumenical discussions, co-operated with others in evangelistic campaigns, and participated in inter-church social aid and action programmes. Although they have achieved a degree of maturity, and theological sophistication, which gives them acceptance within the wider Christian community, to date, they have achieved this without sacrificing the vitality associated with their early beginnings, and their commitment to evangelism. [254]

[OLFB 252-254]