TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. DO YOU KNOW WHAT BROUGHT CHURCHES OF CHRIST INTO EXISTENCE?
2. DO THESE REASONS FOR A SEPARATE EXISTENCE FROM OTHER COMMUNIONS STILL EXIST?
3. WHAT DISTINCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS DO CHURCHES OF CHRIST HAVE TO OFFER TO THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE?
4. IF WE ENTERED INTO UNION WITH ANOTHER CHRISTIAN BODY OR BODIES, WOULD WE HAVE TO SURRENDER THESE DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES?

150 YEARS AGO.

      In America a century and a half ago the life of the churches was much different from what it is now. Below we outline some of the excesses of the churches that brought Churches of Christ into being, in strong protest.

1. SECTARIAN BITTERNESS.

      In America denominations and sects had multiplied, with bitterness and bigotry. Heresy hunts and ex-communications were commonplace.

2. THE BIBLE USED LIKE A BOX OF TEXTS.

      In those days anybody who had a bright idea searched for texts to back it up, and often on that basis formed another and exclusive denomination. It did not occur to him that he had taken these texts out of context. No one thought of trying to find out what the writer of the Bible book meant. Verses from all over the Bible were used as "proof-texts" irrespective of their original meaning. The more imaginative and audacious the "proof-texter", the more awed were his followers at his "knowledge of the Bible".

3. EMOTIONS RAN WILD.

      Those were the days of the great "camp meetings in America to which thousands flocked, often neglecting farms, jobs and families, to be lost in religious emotional orgies. While there was much sincerity and some real conversions, mass hysteria was used to work up people into an ecstatic emotional state that was called "getting religion". The quest was for excitement rather than truth. Emotions were not stirred towards Christian action, but so that people could enjoy being religiously emotional.

A NEW MOVEMENT IS BORN.

      Thomas Campbell and his distinguished son Alexander, newly arrived in America, were distressed at the religious life around them. They set out to work within the church for a reasonable faith, for Biblical conversion without emotional excesses, and for the organic union of divided churches. They were too early for their times, and were forced out of their own denomination for their views. They had desired reform from within. They were forced to work for reforms in a separate existence. Thus a new Movement was born that came to be known as the Restoration Movement because it sought to unite all Christians by restoring the faith and order expressed in the New Testament.

USING THE BIBLE THE RIGHT WAY.

      Alexander Campbell's greatest contribution to the Movement was his plea for a right use of the Bible. He said that it was wrong to search for texts to support preconceived notions, traditions and feelings about what might be true. He said that one must find what the Bible is really saying. One must discover what was in the mind of the author; and what were the conditions of those to whom he was speaking or writing and what he meant them to understand by it. He stressed the need to see each book as a whole in its historic setting. This would enable one to understand the Bible as a whole. Alexander Campbell taught that the New Testament is the fullest revelation of the mind of God for faith and life, because in it we have God's self revelation in Jesus Christ. Union of all Christians was possible, he said, by the discovery of God's truth for the Church as revealed in the New Testament.

A REASONABLE FAITH.

      Those who led the emotional camp meetings and "revivals" distrusted both reason and scholarship. The Campbells and many of their followers were well trained and highly educated men. They

insisted on a reasonable approach to the Scriptures. They said that it was not enough to "get religion" through the feelings. It was necessary to discover God's truth through the application of the mind to his revelation in Christ.

ACROSS THE ATLANTIC AND OVERSEAS.

      A similar ferment of thought was going on in Britain. Thinking people were impatient with ritualism and formalism and barren credalism which, they believed, clouded the clear teachings of Jesus. Many of them, as in America, were forced from the fellowship of existing churches, and in their separation decided to call themselves simply Churches of Christ, and to base their faith and life on the New Testament. By the middle of the nineteenth century the groups on both sides of the Atlantic thought of themselves as belonging to one Restoration Movement. Moving from Britain to Australia and New Zealand, some of these people set up Churches of Christ. In the early days these churches were assisted by evangelists from the United States and they also sent some of their young men for training in the United States. Missionary work from the U.S.A., Britain, Australia and New Zealand has taken the Restoration Movement to over forty countries of the world.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST TEACHING ABOUT GOD?
2. MOST CHURCHES RECITE THE APOSTLES' CREED IN THEIR SERVICES. WHY DON'T CHURCHES OF CHRIST?
3. SHOULD WE NOT HAVE A CATECHISM TO BE LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOLS SO THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP KNOWING WHAT THEY BELIEVE?
4. TO ENTER INTO UNION NEGOTIATIONS WITH ANOTHER COMMUNION THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREED BASIS OF UNION. YET WOULD THIS NOT BE A CREED?
5. HAS THE TIME NOT ARRIVED WHEN CHURCHES OF CHRIST LEADERS SHOULD GET TOGETHER TO WORK OUT ONCE AND FOR ALL WHAT WE REALLY DO BELIEVE?

THE GREAT DOCTRINES OR TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

      Churches of Christ have had nothing to add concerning the great Christian doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, the cross, the resurrection or the life to come. These are the most important doctrines of the Church and it is encouraging to note the great measure of agreement concerning them throughout the Christian Church.

      However, Churches of Christ have objected to human interpretations of these doctrines being grouped into creeds that are used as tests of fellowship. They have always sought to say merely what the Scriptures say concerning them. They have no objection to the historic creeds as confessions, provided they are not used as tests of fellowship or means of exclusion of brother Christians.

      Objections to creeds as tests of fellowship have been traditionally stated as follows:--

      1. If creeds say more than the New Testament they say too much.

      2. If they say less than the New Testament they leave important things out, e. g. the great creeds omit references to the Kingdom of God, although the gospels abound in reference to it.

      3. Creeds cannot be more than human opinions or interpretations of Christian doctrine, and are therefore prone to exclude from fellowship those who in all honesty cannot accept these particular interpretations. Thus creeds, being exclusive, are divisive.

      4. Creeds have attempted to make the Church's doctrines plainer. But they have often made them appear to be more complicated. Creeds themselves need explaining.

      Churches of Christ have always said that the test of one's Christianity is not a creed whether written or unwritten, but rather one's personal allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord of life.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM, "SALVATION"?
2. IN SALVATION, DOES GOD DO IT OR DO WE?
3. CAN I KNOW THAT I AM SAVED?
4. SHOULD WE TRY TO GET A NEW WORD FOR "SALVATION" THAT HAS MEANING FOR MODERN PEOPLE?
5. IF GOD HAS KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING WHO WILL BE SAVED AND WHO WON'T BE, IS THERE ANY POINT IN DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

SALVATION.

      The doctrine of salvation was hotly contested 150 years ago, three main views holding the field.

      1. Some took passages out of context and taught that God had already decided from the beginning who should be saved, and there was nothing one could do about it. This was called "Calvinism" after John Calvin, the Swiss reformer.

      2. Others also misinterpreted certain passages to mean that salvation was God's gift and that one had to wait until God was "good and ready" to give it. When given, one would know from the experience in the heart. This was an emotional experience described as "coming through", and was typical of the "camp meetings" and "revivals". It is another form of Calvinism.

      3. Others again said that salvation was by accepting one or other of the church creeds or confessions.

      On the other hand the Restoration Movement pioneers tried to discover the doctrine of Salvation as expressed in the New Testament, seen as a whole. They found:

      1. That all who are willing to come to God through Christ can be saved by his grace.

      2. That salvation is a continuing act of God in a human life making new and victorious living possible, by the power of his Holy Spirit. That this new quality of life is eternal.

      3. That salvation is by the grace of God, received by faith, faith being the response of the whole person to Jesus Christ.

      4. That repentance is necessary to salvation.

      5. That baptism is linked with salvation, being the divinely appointed way of signifying the death to the old life and the resurrection, by the grace of God, to new life in Christ.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTLINE DUTIES OF ELDERS AND DEACONS?
2. WHAT IS THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORITY FOR
   1. LAYMEN PRESIDING AT THE LORD'S TABLE?
   2. THE LORD'S SUPPER AS THE CENTRAL ACT OF WORSHIP?
   3. THE GOSPEL SERVICE?
   4. THE INVITATION?
3. HOW CAN THE NEW TESTAMENT HELP US TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
1. FETES AS FUND RAISERS?
2. GAMBLING?
3. DRINKING?
4. SUNDAY SPORT?
5. CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS?
6. WHETHER CONFERENCES SHOULD HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL CONGREGATIONS?

THE CHURCH.

      The pioneers sought to restore New Testament Christianity. They realized that they could not restore the New Testament Church in all its details. However, in the New Testament they could see certain great principles or truths that should be followed in the church of their day. Where these teachings were clear they followed

them. Where passages were not clear or were open to two or more interpretations they agreed to differ in love. In some cases decisions had to be made in the life of the churches where there was no clear New Testament teaching. In these cases they used what they called the "principle of expediency". This means that they used common sense and acted as nearly as possible in the spirit of Christ, for what they believed to be the good of the whole church and its mission. Always the fathers of the Restoration Movement called for unity on those matters where the New Testament was clear and for liberty and tolerance and love in all matters of opinion.

MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH.

      For the pioneers, the New Testament teaching on ministry was clear. Each Christian was a minister, rendering that service to Christ for which God had given him the ability. This concept came to be called the "mutual ministry" where each played his part in service to the whole. For instance all Christians were to be evangelists, those who were able to do it to edification should be permitted to preside at the Lord's table, and those with the necessary talents and training could preach and teach and encourage the flock of God.

      The pioneers also noted that in the first church there were elders (teachers and spiritual leaders), deacons (servants of the church, chosen for special duties), and evangelists or missionaries. Most churches had elders and deacons, and in earlier times groups of churches supported evangelists who spent their full time breaking new ground for the gospel and setting un new churches. Later, churches had "ministers who fulfilled, full-time, many of the functions of all three types of ministry (elder, deacon and evangelist).

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

      From the beginning the Lord's Supper was the central act of weekly worship of Churches of Christ, following what appeared to be the New Testament precedent, and what was certainly the custom of the Church in the early centuries.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

      YOU WILL NEED A CONCORDANCE FOR THIS EXERCISE. AFTER THOUGHT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS, FIND THE PASSAGES BY USING YOUR CONCORDANCE. ALSO READ THE CONTEXT TO GET THE MEANING.

1. "KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVETH." DOES THIS REFER TO THE RESURRECTION?

- 9 -

2. "TOUCH NOT, TASTE NOT, HANDLE NOT." THIS VERSE HAS BEEN USED BY TEMPERANCE WORKERS. IS IT ABOUT ABSTINENCE FROM ALCOHOL?
3. SPEAKING OF HIS BACHELORHOOD PAUL SAYS "I WOULD THAT ALL MEN WERE EVEN AS MYSELF." IS CELIBACY THEN A GOOD THING? (READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER).
4. BEFORE WE BAPTIZE A PERSON, NORMALLY WE EXPECT HIM TO "COME FORWARD" AT A NIGHT SERVICE TO MAKE A CONFESSION OF FAITH, VERBALLY AND BEFORE WITNESSES. WHAT NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES SUPPORT THIS PRACTICE? (READ CONTEXT CAREFULLY).
5. THE NICENE CREED REFERS TO "BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS". IS THIS NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING? (EXAMINE PASSAGES AND CONTEXT CAREFULLY).

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE BIBLE.

      Alexander Campbell, seeking an intelligent approach to the Scriptures, in a day when they were used as a "box of proof texts", outlined certain rules for understanding the Bible. They are widely accepted today by most Christians. He said that to understand any part of the Bible one should consider:

      (1) Who wrote or said it?

      (2) To whom was it written or spoken.

      (3) What was the reason for saying or recording it?

      (4) At what period was it written?

      (5) What were the circumstances of those to whom it was written or said, and what did the writer or speaker expect his hearers or readers to understand by it?

      (6) Is the language literal or figurative? Is it history, parable or allegory?

      (7) What is its context (what light do surrounding passages throw upon it)?

      Alexander Campbell also pioneered another view of the Bible that has now gained general acceptance. It is called "Progressive revelation". This means that the Bible records how God gradually revealed himself or showed his will and nature to man as man was increasingly able to understand him. Campbell referred to this "progressive revelation" in the Old Testament as the starlight, moonlight and twilight periods. Finally the sunlight broke out as

God revealed himself in Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

      Churches of Christ have used the slogan, "No creed but Christ."

      They meant that Jesus Christ is the fullest revelation of the mind and will of God. To take this one step further it is reasonable to assume that the rest of the Bible must be interpreted in the light of what God showed of himself through Jesus Christ.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. THE RESTORATIONISTS PLEADED THAT ALL CHURCHES COULD UNITE IF THEY SET ASIDE THEIR TRADITIONS AND BASED THEIR FAITH AND ORDER ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. CAN THERE EVER BE AGREEMENT ON WHAT IS NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY?
2. ANOTHER SLOGAN WIDELY USED IN THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT IS "IN THINGS ESSENTIAL, UNITY. IN MATTERS OF OPINION, LIBERTY." WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL THINGS AND WHAT ARE THE MATTERS OF OPINION?
3. HAVE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SUCCESSFULLY RESTORED THE NEW TESTAMENT FAITH AND ORDER AND LIFE IN THEIR OWN CHURCHES?

UNION ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

      The Restorationists believed that union on the basis of the New Testament is possible because' more than any other part of the Bible it reveals the mind of Christ for the faith and life and mission of the Church. They pleaded for the setting aside of human opinions, so that all Christians together in humility and love could find in the New Testament the mind and will of Christ for the Church.

      However, they were well aware that New Testament passages had to be interpreted in the light of their context, the times and conditions of their writing, and in the light of what Jesus Christ showed of the nature and will and purpose of God.

A NOTE ON INTERPRETATION.

      Anything we read or hear, we interpret. For example, 'he likes country life" might mean that he likes it as well as or better than city life; or that he does not like city life; or that he likes a certain brand of cigarettes. We would need to know more about him and to hear more from him before we could make the correct interpretation.

      Similarly New Testament passages need interpretation in order to find their real meaning.

      1. The New Testament contains facts, e.g. "Christ died for us."

      2. While accepting such facts, they must have some meaning for us. That is, we interpret them. "Christ died for us" will mean something a little different to different people. For some it will mean, "Christ died so that I won't have to die." For others it will mean, "Christ died to show us the extent of the love and forgiveness of God", and so on.

      3. It is a good thing for us to interpret the New Testament writings, otherwise they will have no meaning for us. It is a bad thing for us to try to force our interpretation on others.

      4. We must beware of the danger of building up a case for a doctrine on any passage whose meaning is not clear and concerning which there are differences of interpretation by scholars. For example the doctrine of baptism in relation to salvation is often supported by references to Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. In the first case it is now agreed that the latter verses of Mark 16 were not in the original manuscripts of Mark. In the second case it is questioned by some as to whether "born of water" refers to baptism. Those who question this point out that the context, verses four and six, refers to the contrast between physical and spiritual birth, and that "born of water" could refer to physical birth. However, it does not matter, in that the doctrine of baptism can be supported by a number of other clear passages.

      Alexander Campbell and his followers believed that Christian scholarship was constantly throwing new light onto the New Testament Scriptures, and that we should avail ourselves of it in the quest for the mind of Christ for the faith and life of the Church.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. THE PIONEERS OF THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT ALONE PLEADED FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY. NOW ALL CHURCHES ARE PRAYING AND WORKING FOR IT.
2. THE PIONEERS PLEADED FOR A REASONABLE APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES. THEIR RULES OF INTERPRETATION ARE NOW HELD TO BE FUNDAMENTAL.
3. THE PIONEERS BELIEVED THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT SHOULD BE THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. NOW ALL CHURCHES ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT MUST BE THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR THE CHURCH.
4. THE PIONEERS LIVED IN A WORLD OF SECTARIAN BITTERNESS. TODAY THERE IS FRIENDSHIP AND CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CHRISTIANS THAT THE PIONEERS COULD HAVE SCARCELY BELIEVED POSSIBLE.
5. IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THIS, HAS THE TIME COME WHEN WE SHOULD CEASE TO EXIST AS A SEPARATE BODY?
6. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO WITNESS FOR THE SAKE OF THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?

      The following material lists some principles to which the present writer believes that Churches of Christ as an "Ongoing Christian Movement" should witness clearly and strongly, whether we continue to exist separately or whether we enter into an organic union with another Christian body or bodies.

I. THE NEW TESTAMENT WAY OF LIFE.

      The pioneers of the Restoration Movement, pleading for New Testament Christianity, found themselves forced by circumstances to emphasise New Testament baptism, and what they believed was New Testament worship and church government. However, through their preaching and writing ran the call to the way of living presented in the New Testament.

      There is still a strong need for a restoration of New Testament Christianity as a way of life. The Book that teaches believers' baptism so clearly also teaches us clearly the call of Christ to "take up your cross and follow me". In searching the New Testament diligently for what might be a pattern for the ordering of our churches, perhaps we have overlooked that the throbbing message of the New Testament is that we should lose ourselves as we go to every man in love and concern. We saw that in the days of the pioneers, for some the essence of Christianity was the big emotional religious experience. It is easy enough to slip into the habit of looking for the big meetings, the loud singing and the sensational preaching, rather than being filled with the emotion of concern for ordinary people at the point of their real needs.

      The New Testament offers the good news that by faith, we can be re-created by the living Christ. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation". If the divine miracle of grace has taken place in us, we will have died to ourselves (and any desire we might have for "personal blessings" and "religious thrills") and will be thrilled to be sharing the cross that Christ still bears for all of the rough, tough reprobates and sinners whom he and we love with a consuming love.

      In so far as the modern church is pre-occupied with keeping the institution going, at the expense of the Church's mission to men, we must continue to witness to the New Testament life, that miracle that takes place in a man who is willing to die to himself in order to come alive with Christ in his continuing mission to a needy world.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. HOW WILL OUR WITNESS TO BELIEVERS' BAPTISM BE BEST MADE? BY REMAINING A SEPARATE BODY? OR BY UNITING WITH OTHER BODIES ON CONDITION THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR BAPTISMAL WITNESS WITHIN THE UNITED CHURCH?
2. WE HAVE ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE BAPTISM, THE BAPTISM OF PENITENT BELIEVERS. WHEN WE BAPTIZE SOMEONE WHO WAS

- 14 -

CHRISTENED AS A CHILD, WE ARE SOMETIMES ACCUSED OF PRACTISING RE-BAPTISM. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS OBJECTION?
3. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH THAT BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION?

II. BAPTISM.

      Believers' baptism is still not practised as a regular thing amongst the churches of the world, although they all accept the immersion of believers as valid baptism. In the theological world today there is a great ferment of thinking about baptism. This gives Churches of Christ an unprecedented opportunity for making their witness to what they believe is the New Testament teaching concerning it.

      1. The whole teaching and spirit of the New Testament is that God is not the sort of God who needs to be appeased by the observance of forms and ceremonies. Rather God offers his grace and forgiveness to those who are willing to receive him by faith. However, man is such that he prefers to "placate the deity" by ceremonies rather than entering into a costly, yet abundant relationship with God. This quirk of man underlies much of the early history of infant baptism, and certainly is the motive behind large numbers of modern "social christenings". However, Churches of Christ need to beware of degenerating commitment to the living Christ through baptism into just another ceremony to appease or placate the deity.

      2. The New Testament in letter and spirit makes it clear that salvation or the new life or eternal life is God's free gift to those who respond by faith. This gift cannot be given without a conscious and willing response.

      The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper are believed by the whole Church to be "means of grace". This view is in harmony with the New Testament in so far as baptism and the Lord's supper are ways in which men respond to God in faith. However, there has grown up in some parts of the Church a concept of "mechanical grace". The observance of the act of baptism or the Lord's supper "turns on" the grace of God whether one is making an intelligent response or not. Thus in many churches it is believed that an infant receives grace, through baptism, that otherwise it would not receive.

      Infant baptism is better called "proxy baptism", in that the child is baptized on the parent's confession of faith. (Later he has to make his own confession.) This of course is contrary to the letter and spirit of the New Testament, where personal response through faith is the requirement for salvation, or wholeness of life.

- 15 -

      3. The plain fact of the New Testament is that we are not saved by baptism but by the grace of God. Baptism is the divinely appointed way of witnessing to our response to his grace. It signifies a death to the self which is necessary for the response to God to be made. It signifies the resurrection of a new self, made new by the grace of God. (Grace is God's giving of himself. While the New Testament makes it clear that his grace is given in the response by faith, God's grace is not limited. There is no doubt that he gives himself in many ways into the unfolding life of the growing child, until he is old enough to make his own response to God).

TO GET YOU THINKING.

A CERTAIN MINISTER OF ANOTHER COMMUNION DISCUSSED WITH ONE OF OUR MINISTERS THE PRESIDING OF LAYMEN AT THE LORD'S TABLE IN OUR CHURCHES. (IN MOST COMMUNIONS THE MINISTER PRESIDES BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ORDAINED TO "THE MINISTRY OF THE SACRAMENTS.") OUR MINISTER EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT OUR CONCEPT OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY IS THAT ANY CHRISTIAN IS ABLE TO MINISTER IN THE CHURCH BY VIRTUE OF HIS GOD-GIVEN TALENTS AND TRAINING. HE WAS TOLD THAT IN OUR CHURCHES WE SET APART ("ORDAIN") CAPABLE TRAINED MEN FOR THE MINISTRY OF PRESIDING AT THE TABLE. HE WAS IMPRESSED UNTIL HE ATTENDED A CHURCH OF CHRIST SERVICE AND THE PRESIDENT FOR THE DAY DID NOT PRESIDE IN A WAY THAT EDIFIED THE CONGREGATION. WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?

III. THE LORD'S SUPPER.

      We have insisted on a "mutual ministry" in Churches of Christ, as being in harmony with the New Testament concept of ministry, wherein each man ministers according to his ability. Hence we have not accepted the practice of a religious caste ("clergy") having the sole right to the "ministry of the sacraments". There is no doubt that "ordained clergy" may sometimes administer the sacrament in unedifying ways. However there is a greater danger in Churches of Christ of degeneration in presiding at the table, as we have so many more sharing in this ministry, often without careful selection and training.

      Thought might well be given to what have come to be known as "presiding talks". Unless these truly lead worshippers to humble contemplation of the cross and its meaning for them, it might well

be better for us to set aside the use of our own human words and use the words of Scripture to introduce the communion.

      This is an age where laymen are entering more fully into the total life of all denominations. Our own practice if done to edification could well be a commendation to the opening of communion tables to the presidency of capable laymen in other churches.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. TRADITIONALLY WE HAVE SAID THAT CHRISTIAN UNION IS POSSIBLE WHEN CHRISTIANS ACCEPT THE FACTS STATED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND GIVE ONE ANOTHER LIBERTY TO INTERPRET THESE FACTS, PROVIDED WE DON'T FORCE OUR INTERPRETATIONS ON ONE ANOTHER. WHAT THEN IF ANOTHER DENOMINATION WERE WILLING TO UNITE WITH US ON THIS BASIS, ALTHOUGH ITS INTERPRETATION ON BAPTISM DIFFERED FROM OURS? WOULD WE WANT IT HAMMERED OUT AND WRITTEN DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE FIRST?
2. THE SCHEME FOR CHURCH UNION IN NEW ZEALAND PROVIDES THAT NO DENOMINATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FORGO ANYTHING THAT IN ALL CONSCIENCE IT ACCEPTS AS A BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE.
3. IF THIS UNION IS CONSUMMATED THERE WILL BE MANY DIFFERENCES WITHIN IT. COULD CHURCHES OF CHRIST BE PARTY TO SUCH A UNION SCHEME?

IV. THE NEW TESTAMENT BASIS FOR CHRISTIAN UNION.

      Churches of Christ still stand almost alone on the principle of union on the New Testament only. While others accept the New Testament as the standard for the church, they want agreed formulae for practical unions. Churches of Christ can see the need for agreements and undertakings of a practical kind, if churches are to unite, but they do not want such agreements to be binding on any one's conscience, or to be tests of fellowship. We believe that the New Testament alone should be binding on Christians. We believe that there must be generous liberty of interpretation of New Testament passages amongst ourselves and between ourselves and others.

      Churches of Christ have always conceded that they are not looking for a detailed pattern of church life and government (a blue-print) in the New Testament. Nor have they refused to have Sunday Schools, church buildings, theological colleges, conference

and church committees and other things for which there was no New Testament precedent. All of these things have been freely used as worthwhile means of furthering the New Testament concept of the mission of the Church.

      However, modern members of Churches of Christ should be doing a lot of thinking about why they believe that the way to union is by the restoration of New Testament Christianity, what they mean by New Testament Christianity, and how union may come in this way.

      The following may be a guide to such thinking. The importance of the New Testament is that it reveals the mind of Christ. The gospels reveal the mind and spirit of Christ as no other documents can. The rest of the New Testament reveals how in the first century situation the early Christians sought to interpret the mind of Christ and to fulfil his intention for the Church. Christian unity is possible as all Christians in humility and self-surrender, and guided by the Holy Spirit discover together in prayerful study of the scripture, what is the mind and intention of Christ for, the Church in our day.

      Members of Churches of Christ should always be taking the initiative in co-operation with other Christians, in listening to them, in learning from them, in stating our convictions to them, and in studying with them in the quest for the unity that Christ wants for his church today.

TO GET YOU THINKING.

1. WOULD THERE BE ANY DRASTIC CHANGES IN THE GOVERNMENT, LIFE AND WORSHIP OF A LOCAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST CONGREGATION IF CHURCHES OF CHRIST ENTERED INTO A UNION WITH OTHER BODIES?
2. WE AGREE THAT ALL FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST ARE CHRISTIANS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DENOMINATIONS. WE CO-OPERATE WITH THEM IN C.E., BIBLE SOCIETIES, CONVENTIONS, COUNCILS OF CHURCHES, AND UNITED EVANGELISTIC WITNESS. WE HAPPILY PERMIT THEM TO HAVE COMMUNION WITH US. WE RECOGNISE THAT OTHER CHURCHES ARE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

1. WHAT MORE DO WE EXPECT OTHER CHURCHES AND CHRISTIANS TO DO BEFORE WE CAN ENTER INTO CLOSER FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM IN THE CHURCH'S MISSION AS "SERVANT CHURCH" TO A DESPERATELY NEEDY WORLD?

- 18 -

2. WHAT MORE DO WE EXPECT OTHER CHRISTIANS AND CHURCHES TO DO BEFORE WE ENTER INTO ORGANIC UNION WITH THEM?
3. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY FROM ANOTHER DENOMINATION WHICH WISHES TO ENTER FULLY INTO THE LIFE OF ONE OF OUR CONGREGATIONS BUT PREFERS TO RETAIN ITS AFFILIATION WITH ITS OWN DENOMINATION?
4. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT A CHURCHES OF CHRIST GIRL WHO MARRIES A PRESBYTERIAN BOY, AND BOTH DESIRE TO HAVE A COMMON CHURCH LIFE? SHE CAN BE ACCEPTED INTO HIS CHURCH ON THE BASIS OF HER BAPTISM. NORMALLY HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FULLY INTO A CHURCHES OF CHRIST CONGREGATION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE SINCERELY BELIEVES WAS HIS VALID BAPTISM.
5. TWO STRUGGLING CONGREGATIONS EXIST SIDE BY SIDE IN A COMMUNITY. ONE IS A CHURCHES OF CHRIST CONGREGATION. IS THERE ANY WAY IN WHICH THEY CAN FULFIL MORE EFFECTIVELY THE MISSION AND WITNESS OF THE CHURCH, BY BECOMING A SINGLE CONGREGATION? WOULD THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST CONGREGATION HAVE TO COMPROMISE ANY PRINCIPLES OR LOSE ITS AFFILIATION WITH THE REST OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST?

V. RESTORING WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH HAD.

      There are three things that the New Testament Church had that any Restoration Movement worthy of its name must continue to work to restore.

A. The First is Unity.

      The first Christian Church was united although there was great diversity amongst the churches. The church at Jerusalem for a long time continued its affiliation with Jewry and the temple, and kept the Jewish law and observed the Jewish customs and ceremonies. On the other hand the Gentile churches had no connection with Judaism. In some places the churches had a ministry of elders; in other places they were under the leadership of a single missionary appointed by Paul or other apostles. Local areas had a great deal of autonomy although the mother church and the apostles felt free

to give instruction to the churches, and apparently the churches felt just as free to ignore them if they wished. However, in all of these wide differences, in some cases on matters of basic doctrine, they maintained a total unity of the whole Body of Christ.

B. The Second is Mission.

      The first Church believed that it existed for mission. It was the Body of Christ, doing what Christ had done in the body. He preached the good news about God, he taught, he healed, he suffered and gave himself in love for men. The mission of the first Church was to preach the good news, to teach, to heal and to be the "suffering servant" working for the redemption of the world. (NOTE: Healing means more than patching up the body. It means moving into all human need and sickness of the human spirit.)

      There is no point in Churches of Christ existing as a Restoration Movement, and there is no point in their seeking union with other Christians, unless their continued existence, or their union with others, enables them more fully to be involved in the mission of the Church.

C. The Third is acceptance of the Lordship of Christ.

      The first Christians not only accepted Christ as Risen Lord in their own personal experience. They certainly did that. But they also accepted him as Lord of life, the world, the universe. "This Jesus whom ye crucified, God has made both Lord and Christ, was their message. They gleefully quoted Christ's parting words, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." They set about seeing that he was recognized as Lord over every part of life, and rightfully acknowledged as King of all creation.

      If the Restoration Movement is to he an ongoing movement, either as a separate entity or in a union with others, we must truly acknowledge Christ as Lord in three ways.

1. We must accept him as, Lord of every area of our lives through continuing personal surrender to him as living Lord.
2. We must work to bring every area of life in which we are involved under his Lordship. This will mean responsibility to him in the life of family, work, community and leisure.
3. We Must co-operate more fully with other Christians in; bringing under his Lordship more areas of life where he is rightfully King and Lord.

VI. "IN ALL THINGS LOVE."

      "In all things love," was a slogan of the pioneers of the Restoration Movement. However, they were often forced into defensive situations where they were not always as loving as they might have been. We, their successors, have not always shown Christian love to one another both within our churches and to those of other churches. Perhaps fear has made us less loving than we might have been. We have feared the different opinions of others of our brethren and of others of other churches because these opinions have seemed to be a threat to our own cherished convictions. We have tended to fear honest and loving dialogue with those who differ from us in our own churches and other churches, again because of the possible threat to our own position. Yet "perfect love casteth out fear". Perhaps our greatest service to the Restoration Movement is for each of us to look again to our commitment to the living God. If we are filled with his Spirit, we will be filled with love. For God is love.