Introduction (II) by John Mark Hicks, Ph.D.
Moser's Theology of Grace
After leaving Thorp Springs, Moser began writing for the two major papers of the Churches of Christ, the Firm Foundation of Austin, Texas24 and the Gospel Advocate of Nashville, Tennessee.25 His contributions to the latter were few at first26 because he emphasized the periodical of his own home state.27 In 1932 he shifted his literary contributions from the Firm Foundation to the Gospel Advocate. This was probably the result of his theological incompatibility with the Firm Foundation.
From the beginning his articles in the Firm Foundation evidenced a concern for the state of the church. His first article addressed his fear that worship had been "converted from a spiritual feast to an entertainment of the pleasure seeker." For Moser the key ingredient of worship is humility, and when the "spirit of entertainment enters, the spirit of worship goes out."28 His articles ranged from discussions of materialism,29 modernism,30 the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit,31 and the mission of the church to preach the gospel.32
However, from the beginning, Moser protested, at first lightly and then more boldly, what he regarded as the legalistic preaching of the gospel by his own brothers.33 As early as 1922 he observed that "when the gospel is preached the part that has baptism in it will take care of itself," but "many never say anything in the commission but baptism."34 In three articles, one in 1923 and two in 1925, Moser outlined his basic position which he never surrendered. In 1923 he stated that "faith is the only thing that can save," and sinners are saved "when faith has completely manifested itself in leading them to obey the Lord" through baptism as an expression of that faith. Baptism, however, is not what saves. Faith saves as the principle which underlies baptism. When baptism is exalted above faith or placed on the same level, then the message reflects a legalism. "When we view baptism, or anything else," he concluded, "in any light except as a manifestation of faith we are headed toward legalism. This," he added, "is often done."35
In 1925 he published an article entitled "The Righteousness of the Law Versus the Righteousness of Grace."36 He contrasted the human righteousness which comes by doing the law versus the righteousness of God which comes by believing the gospel. He wrote: "And it is because of His righteousness received by faith that God justifies man . . . So when God saves He looks not to our righteousness, but to the righteousness of Christ received by faith." Another article in 1925 warned that preachers must make distinctions when they talk about the "Eight Ways of Being Saved." All eight (faith, God, Christ, baptism, blood, grace, gospel and hope) do not sustain the same relation to each other, nor are they all equally important. "In our zeal to fight error," he wrote, "we sometimes run into error . . . Grace comprehends all of God's part as faith includes all of man's part." Salvation is by grace through faith, and not "on the principle of works."37
In 1926 Moser published six articles on the relation of grace to faith.38 His overriding concern in all of these articles was the place of the cross and faith which he believed were being displaced by baptism. Preachers were emphasizing baptism to the point of placing it "on par with works of law."39 The value of baptism, according to Moser, is that it embodies faith, and the value of faith is that it looks outside of itself toward our substitute Jesus Christ. Neither faith nor baptism has any value within themselves. Faith saves, when it is expressed in baptism, "because it trusts in God. It is the hand of the soul extended to receive what God in his mercy offers, grace."40 Moser disavowed as legalistic the belief that baptism is the saving act and faith merely prompts that action or motivates it. On the contrary, it is only faith that saves when it is expressed in baptism.41
Moser consistently emphasized the contrast between the principles of grace and law, faith and works, or divine and human righteousness.42 The principle of salvation is grace through faith. "Grace offers, faith accepts."43 Salvation is possible only by grace, and only faith can accept that grace. For Moser, faith is an act of the whole person--intellect, will and affections.44 Consequently, faith is "not simply belief of facts, but trust in the crucified Christ;" trust in a person.45 It is the "acceptance of truth joined with love for God, and the actual casting of one's self upon God."46 Repentance, confession and baptism are expressions of that faith which God requires before he bestows his grace. But these expressions draw their meaning from faith. They are not isolated acts. "This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture," he wrote, "lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ."47
Early in his ministry, then, Moser protested the subtle legalism which existed among his fellow preachers. There is no evidence that Moser underwent a theological change in the 1920s, but there is an increasing protest against legalism in the pages of the Firm Foundation throughout the decade; a legalism found both in modernism48 and among "gospel preachers."49 Moser's boldness grew as he saw the gospel of grace neglected by many of his colleagues in Texas and Oklahoma.
"The Way of Salvation" (1932)
The publication of Moser's book The Way of Salvation by the Gospel Advocate Company in 1932 was a significant event.50 Its significance is not to be measured by the public outcry it engendered. There was, in fact, little notice of it among the papers.51 It was as if the book was published and then ignored.
The significance of the book, however, is to be judged by the difference it highlighted between two influential contemporaries, G. C. Brewer and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. When the book appeared, Wallace, the editor of the Gospel Advocate, editorialized on it. His tone is noticeably negative though tempered by his brother Cled's preface to the book. "We do not think," he wrote, "that [Moser's] 'approach' to these subjects is more effective than the plain preaching of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism as 'conditions' of salvation, like all faithful gospel preachers have always preached . . . Such preaching is not to be criticized."52 Towards the end of his life, Wallace reflected on his editorial in 1932. In an appendage to his last published book, Wallace regretted "having contributed to its circulation" and noted that his brother Cled regretted having written the preface. Wallace blamed Moser for "indoctrinating young preachers with denominational error on the plan of salvation." Moser's "'salvation by faith' hobby" is contrary to the "gospel plan of salvation" and is "no more nor less than denominational doctrine."53
G. C. Brewer, on the other hand, had almost nothing but praise for the book. One year after it was published Brewer wrote an article entitled "Read This Book." In fact, he suggested that it be read "two or three times".54 It is "one of the best little books that came from any press in 1932," according to Brewer. Further, he commended Moser for going to Scripture first instead of first searching for what is taught among Churches of Christ and then going about to establish it by Scripture. Brewer wrote: "The author's independence of all denominational views or brotherhood ideas, or of what the 'fathers' taught, or of what has been 'our doctrine' is the most encouraging thing that I have seen in print among the disciples of Christ in this decade."
It is clear, then, that Wallace and Brewer had two entirely different views of this book. Wallace believed that it was too critical of brotherhood preaching and offered denominational doctrine in the place of biblical preaching on the plan of salvation. Indeed, he noted that the renowned Baptist debater Ben Bogard used to flaunt Moser's book in his debates with gospel preachers.55 Brewer, on the other hand, welcomed the critique of legalism among the Churches of Christ. In his review, Brewer noted that "some of us have run to the extreme of making salvation depend on works" so that some have made salvation "a matter of human achievement."56 It is apparent that either Brewer or Wallace were misreading Moser, or that there was a clear theological difference concerning the biblical doctrine of grace between these two pillars of the Churches of Christ.57
Wallace was not, however, the only one to read Moser this way. With the exception of two articles, after the publication of his book, Moser never published another article in the Firm Foundation. The two articles which were published are significant because they highlight the difference between Showalter and Moser. The first article, according to Showalter, was mistakenly printed in his absence, and the second was Moser's reply to the editor's critique of the first article.58 The upshot of this exchange is that Showalter regarded Moser as a traitor who had sided with the Baptists. It is reasonable to assume that Moser was not permitted to publish, or that he did not want to publish, in the Firm Foundation. Due to the correlation of dates, his shift to writing for the Gospel Advocate was probably due to the publication of The Way of Salvation,59 or at least to Showalter's increasing frustration with Moser's themes.60
The Way of Salvation is subtitled "Being an Exposition of God's Method of Justification Through Christ." It is fundamentally an exposition of the doctrine of atonement from three perspectives. First, it unpacks the nature of Christ's atonement as it relates to the human need for righteousness in God's sight; the human need for justification. Second, it correlates the conditions of salvation (faith, repentance, confession and baptism) with the nature of the atonement; it reflects theologically on the atonement. Third, it explains how the doctrine of atonement functions as the foundation of Christian life in sanctification and worship; it applies the biblical doctrine of grace to the Christian life. There is no doubt, as Allen has commented, that there is a "subtle but steady polemic: somebody was misconstruing the saving work of Christ and seriously compromising the gospel."61
The Way of Salvation is based upon the principle of grace through faith as opposed to law through works. Due to human sin, the law is impotent to save, and consequently humanity cannot hope to be saved through any amount of works. It is faith that saves, not acts produced by faith or works apart from faith. Moser opposed any idea where faith functions as a mere principle of action so that the acts save rather than faith save. That would violate Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is more than a mere intellectual assent by which one is moved to act so that the act can save. Rather, faith means "trust or reliance."62 It is our trust in the propitiation of Christ that saves. Faith is the principle of salvation by which we receive God's grace.
This excludes works, or "doing deeds," as a principle of salvation.63 Works contain their own righteousness, and we are not saved by our own righteousness. Works, therefore, exclude grace. However, Moser did not believe salvation was unconditional or that baptism was not a part of what God requires for salvation. Rather, baptism draws its meaning from faith just as faith draws its meaning from its object, Christ crucified.64 Baptism is expressive of the faith which trusts in Christ for salvation. Since God has required baptism as an expression of faith, baptism as that expression is the means of salvation. Baptism is not, therefore, a work, but a required expression of faith. It has the meaning of faith in that it rejects human righteousness and receives divine righteousness.65 God, however, will not bestow that gift until faith is expressed in the required manner.66 Moser regarded this as a fundamental principle of God's relationship with humanity, whether it was Noah, Abraham or Joshua: "when a command is given which depends on faith for its performance, faith is not considered or accepted until the command has been obeyed."67
Moser's polemic against "the plan" surfaced in this context.68 The "plan" construct isolates faith from baptism, and forces baptism to stand alone as if it is the act which procures the remission of sins, or it is the act which changes the state of the sinner. It treats baptism as a separate step apart from faith and faith is reduced to a "principle of action."69 Faith merely "starts one on his way to Christ, gets him so far and stops, then turns him over to repentance," and so on through confession and baptism. In contrast, Moser argued that faith must be seen as the principle of all other acts; they are expressions of faith. They gain their meaning from the meaning of faith. They are not arbitrary, independent acts, but expressions of trust in the blood of Christ for salvation.70
The heart of Moser's book, however, is the contrast between human and divine righteousness.71 Human righteousness is rooted in the principle of works (as debt), but divine righteousness is rooted in the principle of grace (as gift). This distinction, between a righteousness that is based on "good works" or "human effort" and a righteousness which is given by God through faith, was crucial for Moser.72 Trust in Christ and expression of that trust in the required manner signifies a "one-hundred-per-cent rejection of the doctrine of justification by works."73 Through the blood of Christ a divine righteousness, or, what Scripture calls, the "righteousness of God" is received. This righteousness is given through "the principle of imputation" so that "the believer does not have to depend upon his own imperfect obedience." On the contrary, "he pleads the obedience of Christ" for "Christ is his righteousness."74 Salvation, according to Moser, rests in the fact that we can claim Christ's righteousness as our own--his obedience is our merit.75 "This divine righteousness," Moser thought, "should be the theme of every gospel sermon."76
According to Moser, this contrast between divine and human righteousness; between imputed and inherent righteousness is the heart of the gospel. The difference "between these two kinds of righteousness is the basis of the conflict between law and works and grace and fai th."77 When the law demands works, it demands efforts at human righteousness. When grace calls for faith, it calls for the acceptance of divine righteousness as a gift. All human efforts at obeying any law, whether human traditions, the Mosaic code or the law of Christ, are efforts at human righteousness. The glorious call of the gospel is to accept God's imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith. It is a righteousness that does not depend on a righteousness earned by works from below, but upon the righteousness given from above through faith.78
"Are We Preaching the Gospel of Christ?" (1937)
On December 1, 1932, Moser published an article entitled "Preaching Jesus."79 To preach Jesus, according to Moser, is to proclaim him as the Son of God who bears the sins of the world as a sin-offering to God. To preach Jesus is to proclaim the atoning sacrifice of Christ; to proclaim him as Savior, not as Lawgiver. It is not "enough," he wrote, to proclaim the fact of Jesus' death and the command to be baptized. "One can preach faith, repentance, confession and baptism, and not preach the gospel." What must be proclaimed is that Jesus is Savior, the sin-bearer of the world, and that faith means to "trust in a Savior." He wrote: "When one loses sight of Christ as a sin-bearer, he thinks of faith as a mere 'mental assent,' and, therefore speaks disparagingly of it. To such a person faith is no more than a principle of action that moves man to seek salvation by his own efforts, just as though the death of Christ were without significance!" Thus, when Philip preached Jesus as man's sin-bearer, this was not an "incidental reference, but constituted the chief point of his sermon. Philip preached not a plan, but a man."80 Moser was concerned that the conditions of salvation were preached "apart from their reference to the atonement." When this is done, he argued, "the conditions of salvation become pure law and salvation is based on mere works. In this case grace is made void."
On January 1, 1933 Moser was appointed to the staff of the Gospel Advocate as the head of the "Text and Context" department.81 Despite the fact that he was a new addition, his article "Preaching Jesus," drew quick fire from another staff member, R. L. Whiteside.82 Whiteside agreed that the "foundation facts of the gospel--namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ--must be preached" but we must not only preach him as Savior and Priest, but also as King and Lawgiver. Whiteside contended that Christ is preached "when any part of his word is preached . . . no matter what part of the New Testament" is expounded. Thus, preaching the gospel is synonymous with preaching the word or preaching from any part of the New Testament. Whiteside broadened the concept of gospel to include the whole of the New Testament. Moser limited the gospel to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.83 This was the first salvo in "the Man or the Plan" controversy.84
As a result of the tension that grew among the Advocate staff, Moser was, according to Wallace, "dropped."85 As Wallace described it, the staff (including H. Leo Boles, F. B. Srygley, C. R. Nichol and R. L. Whiteside) objected to Moser's "peculiar ideas" on the conditions of salvation which they believed were "contrary to the gospel."86 They did not want Moser, as a staff member, to use the Advocate as an official rostrum from which to address the church.
This tension appears in the pages of the Advocate itself. In 1933 R. L. Whiteside began a study of Romans in which he explicitly responds to Moser's The Way of Salvation.87 Some of this tension was also reflected in Moser's condemnation of those who "pronounce one a heretic simply because he is out of line with others."88 Despite the problems his convictions caused, Moser could not be quiet. He had to speak despite the fear which keeps others quiet--the fear of being "put out of the synagogue."89
Nevertheless, Moser's name last appeared as a staff member in the August 24, 1933 issue of the Advocate shortly after Whiteside's critique. In light of this tension, Brewer's favorable review of Moser's book earlier in that same year was a significant event. It demonstrates that Moser had his supporters. Indeed, the struggle was probably more politically complicated than will ever be known due to the premillennial controversy that was raging at the time.90
In 1933 he published three more articles in the Advocate after his dismissal from the staff,91 but did not publish there again until 1937.92 These years were difficult ones for the Moser family. During this time Moser was the target of many personal attacks which helped to bring on his near fatal illness.93 He was "barred from participation in numerous church events," including the Abilene Christian College Lectures.94 He gave up full-time, located work for a while, and apparently stopped writing. It was, no doubt, a time for licking his wounds.
However, when he returned to writing, he continued his barrage against legalistic preaching. In 1937 Moser published a booklet entitled "Are We Preaching the Gospel?"95 This booklet reproved ministers for preaching gospel sermons without any gospel in them. "All so-called gospel sermons that ignore the atonement of Christ for sin are without sense and powerless to save. In too many cases," he wrote, "Christ crucified is the 'forgotten Man'."96
Moser defined the gospel as Christ crucified for our sins. The "gospel is not that Christ died, but that He died 'for our sins'."97 This was a crucial point for Moser. He believed that when the gospel is defined as mere facts--the fact of the death, burial and resurrection, then the gospel is not properly defined. The gospel "does not consist in abstract FACTS. It concerns a PERSON. Man is not saved by FACTS, but by a PERSON."98 Consequently, the gospel sermon needs to not only assert the fact, but explain the meaning of those facts in relation to the person of Christ as Savior. Mere historical facts do not constitute the gospel.
Further, Moser feared that the proclamation of commands to be obeyed is often substituted for the gospel itself. One "can preach the conditions of salvation and not preach the gospel in the strictest sense ."99 The conditions of salvation are not the gospel, but are our response to the gospel. Therefore, when we preach the conditions of salvation apart from the gospel, those conditions "become acts of merit."100 They become a "mere 'plan' to which man must subscribe" so that one is saved by the plan rather than the man.101 He noted, "It is possible to make proselytes and sectarians without the gospel, but Christians are not made without it."102
During the years prior to writing this booklet, Moser listened attentively to preachers to see whether they proclaimed the gospel or not. He also conducted an analysis of several sermon books available to him.103 His conclusion was that "the gospel was being neglected in many sermons which were supposed to be gospel sermons."104 According to Moser, there was an analogy between modernism and the neglect of the gospel among so-called gospel preachers. He compared two sermons books--one by an unnamed restorationist and the other by the modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick. Both, he claimed, lacked any discussion of the meaning of Christ's death for our sins, but they laid stress on the moral example of Jesus. Their mutual point was that Christ died to demonstrate the love of God and to provide a new law by which we might have life if we obeyed. Both contained a "graceless, crossless and bloodless" gospel, which is no gospel at all.105 Whereas the modernist rejects the gospel, others, according to Moser, have neglected it.106
While restorationists have not rejected the gospel like the modernists, according to Moser, there is a real danger that neglect will ultimately lead to rejection. Indeed, neglect is an implicit rejection. The theology that undergirds neglect, and provides a reason for it, is a denial of the gospel itself. It denies the "truth of the gospel."107 This theology, Moser believed, is rooted in a false construction of the gospel as an abstract plan.
I have observed that those who neglect to give the gospel the proper emphasis are accustomed to speaking of Christianity as a LAW and man's response to the gospel as WORKS. The conditions of salvation are thought of as a 'plan' or 'law' to which man must subscribe. . . And today some speak of Christianity as just another 'law' which demands works. Their forms of thought and expressions would be entirely appropriate for an administration of pure law. They would need no change if the cross of Christ had never existed.108
Consequently, when someone can preach from John 3:16 and fail to emphasize the atonement, it is probably because his theology is more suited for law than for grace.109 Moser, therefore, pled for a reintroduction of the language of grace, atonement and faith into our "gospel speech."110
Christ crucified must be preached because there can be no faith without him. One may assert the facts, and believe those facts, but that alone is not biblical faith. "Belief in mere facts is not gospel faith."111 One may convince another of his error on baptism, and baptize him without faith. He believed the facts and he had the right view of baptism, but he did not trust Christ as his Savior. "He must actually trust in, yield to Christ for salvation."112 Consequently, Moser pled with his preaching brothers to "explain the MEANING of faith" so that the "purity of the gospel" might be preserved.113 Faith is the "renunciation of self and any claim to human merit," and "the expression of a lost soul, conscious of its condemnation, reaching out for a Savior."114 In this way, when repentance, confession and baptism are preached the chief meaning of these responses--faith--will not be neglected. "So, then, the MEANING of the conditions of salvation is the chief point in them. And apart from Christ crucified, they have no meaning."115
Just as with The Way of Salvation, G. C. Brewer came to Moser's defense and promoted his pamphlet.116 He encouraged all preachers, as he himself did, to go back through their recent sermons in order to justify the title "gospel sermons." Indeed, Brewer admitted that he too had "been made to fear that some of us have, in crying against the doctrine of unconditional salvation, gone too far in emphasizing the conditions. In making our salvation depend upon these conditions, which it does, we have attributed value or merit to the conditions; thought of them as works, which they are not." On the other hand, Brewer also admitted that he had never heard anyone define the gospel without mentioning its facts--the death, burial and resurrection of Christ--though he had heard some "who did not put the emphasis upon 'for our sins' that [he] thought should be there." In other words, Brewer believed that Moser criticism was just--the facts have been preached without reference to their meaning.
"Christ Versus a Plan" (1952)
Moser continued this theme with periodic articles in the Gospel Advocate. Two series of articles are worthy of mention. Both are directed at legalistic preaching. One series was directed at legalism on the right (the plan theorists), and the other at legalism on the left (modernists).
The former series was entitled "The Doctrines of the Cross."117 His first article laid out his basic position. The cross, he wrote, "determines whether man must attempt justification upon the ground of his own righteousness or upon the principle of faith . . . This is the message that must come first in all preaching. It is the foundation of the church that must be laid in each individual case of conversion to Christ."118 Every text must be interpreted in the light of this principle, and "no subject vitally connected with salvation can possibly be understood except in the light of the cross."119
The cross, then, means that we are not under law in the sense that we are "under obligation . . . to live perfectly, to merit [our] salvation."120 Rather, salvation is offered on the "principle of mercy" which is based upon the death of Christ for our sins.121 Faith, therefore, has Christ crucified as its object and not a plan for saving himself. When one preaches Christ without the atonement, only commands or laws are preached. When only commands are preached, then there can be no trust in Christ as the Crucified Savior. As a result faith "is no more than a principle of action which moves man to obey, and obeying looks to obedience as the ground of his acceptance with God."122 This kind of faith leads to works of merit. It is reliance on a "plan of salvation" rather than on the one who is the plan. Christ "is the 'plan'. The merit to save is in him."123
The series directed at modernism was entitled "'The Essence of Christianity, According to Paul'--Reviewed."124 Moser feared that a modernist view of the atonement had invaded the church, and the path had been paved for it by legalistic preaching over the years. Because of a de-emphasis on the atoning blood of Christ as the propitiation for sin, some now conceived of reconciliation as the creation of a subjective experience through the communal love of God apart from the objective work of Christ on the cross. The subjective experience, then, became the ground of reconciliation which is rooted in the universal love of God rather than in the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross. As a result, it is our human love which reconciles us to God. This was yet another form of legalism.
Consequently, for Moser, the legalism of the right and the legalism of the left come back around to meet each other. They both affirmed that human acts or experience were the ground of our relationship with God. Rather than trusting in the person and work of Christ crucified, both legalisms entail some form of self-righteousness or works-righteousness.
In his "Christ Versus a 'Plan'" pamphlet, published by Harding Press in Searcy, Arkansas, Moser gave us his fullest discussion of the "Man or the Plan" controversy. This document began the debate that ultimately exploded a decade later in the Firm Foundation, although, at the time, it did not create a stir among the papers in the brotherhood.125 The arguments, however, were as old as the 1930s when Moser pressed them then, and would be pressed again by new advocates in the 1960s. Moser's theology, worked out in the 1920s and 1930s, undergirds his pamphlet, and here bore fruit in an attack on the "plan of salvation" as it was conceived by some preachers among the Churches of Christ.
The timing of this document is important. It appeared at the beginning of the institutional controversy when the emphasis was on the pattern of the New Testament, the plan of salvation and strict, precise obedience to that pattern and plan. The soteriological focus of the Churches of Christ was on whether strict obedience to the pattern was necessary for salvation and what exactly that pattern contained. The right and moderate wings of the Churches of Christ were debating the exact details of the pattern so as to determine who was the true Church of Christ. In this context, Moser published a pamphlet which called us back to Christology as the basis of our soteriology. He moved the discussion away from ecclesiology back to Christology. Despite the fact that he was either ignored or lightly dismissed, he initiated a theological shift that would bear fruit in the 1960s after the church was wearied by the internal struggle over institutionalism.
"Many" individuals, according to Moser, believed that while Jesus' death qualified him to give a plan of salvation, the plan itself is the condition of salvation. To preach the "plan" was to preach faith, repentance, confession and baptism.126 That this was an ordinary way of construing the language is confirmed by A. G. Hobbs, Jr. in a 1948 article entitled "Give the Plan, Brother." The article bemoaned the fact that "some will preach for several days and never tell a sinner how to be saved," that is, they were preaching the man without preaching "the plan."127 His caution was not only to preach the death and blood of Christ, but also to "make the church and plan of salvation stand out and ring forth as clear as a bell."128
Moser's complaint was not that the conditions of salvation are preached, but that they are preached "without a single reference to the cross."129 The heart of the message is not preached along with the "plan." Moser's pamphlet was a call for preachers to make the "redemptive power of the blood of Jesus" their central message in preaching; to preach Christ as a sin-offering and not merely as an example, teacher, lawgiver or king.130
However, Moser's concern was not simply to preach Christ in addition to the plan, or to encourage the preaching of the cross whenever the conditions of salvation are preached. Rather, he believed that the notion of a "plan" of salvation that does not involve Christ crucified is legalistic and encourages a form of human righteousness. The "'plan' theory," as Moser called it, makes Jesus another lawgiver to whom obedience is rendered on the principle of works instead of receiving grace on the principle of faith.131
"The 'plan' theory," he wrote, "logically makes the 'plan,' not Christ crucified, the means of salvation."132 When sinners are invited to obey a plan and be saved, this places the saving power in the plan rather than in the Christ. Even though Christ provided the plan, when the plan is separated from Christ it becomes a means of legal justification. It reduces faith to a principle of action, and makes the act of baptism a legal work by which righteousness is worked or achieved. Faith, therefore, is devoid of trust in a person and is reduced to a mere intellectual belief because of which one acts.133
Further, the "'plan' theory," according to Moser, "misconceives the meaning of obedience."134 According to the "'plan' theory," obedience is submission to the authority of the king. We obey because God has commanded it and only in relation to the principle of law which contains the command. But this reduces baptismal obedience to the "general obligation of obedience" which is salvation "by law through works and not by grace through faith."135 This places baptism in the broad category of a good work and saps from it the meaning of saving faith itself. Rather, the obedience of faith involves trust in the sin-offering of Jesus Christ. It is an expression of faith, and not a work of obedience to a law. It is not "mere obedience" to a "general obligation," but it is the submission of one's self to Christ through an expression of faith. The obedience that God requires for salvation is submissive, trusting faith and not compliance with a law of works.136
The "'plan' theory," then, undermines a gospel view of faith and baptism. It calls for us to submit to a plan rather than submitting to Christ. It looks to the plan rather than to the work of Christ for salvation. As preached by some the plan more naturally functions as a work of merit than as a principle of faith. The danger of the "'plan' theory," according to Moser, is that one is tempted to "consider his obedience to some 'plan' as the ground of his salvation rather than relying upon Christ crucified for pardon."137 Consequently, Moser summarized the point of his pamphlet with a devout and earnest declaration: "I do with all my heart condemn preaching the conditions of salvation apart from the cross."138
An interesting passage in G. C. Brewer's Autobiography emphasizes the importance of Moser's critique.139 Brewer received a question from a reader concerning the place of confession in the "plan of salvation." The reader wanted to know if the "plan" had "four steps or three,"140 and if one "dies following baptism without confession with the mouth, what will Jesus do on the judgment day about it?"141
Brewer immediately commented on the prominence of the idea of a "plan" in the mind of the reader. He wrote:
He is not alone in this manner of thinking, either. Some of us have observed this in the writing and preaching of some of our young preachers. It is hoped that the attention of these fine brethren will be attracted to this article, and that the point here will be given serious thought by them . . . there seems to be a tendency on the part of some to think of this "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5, 16:26) as a ritual, a legalistic rite, a ceremony comparable to the "divers washings" or purification processes of the Mosaic Law. This is a grievous mistake. To put stress upon a "plan" and the specific items and steps of that plan may lead to a wrong conclusion. We are saved by a person, not by a plan; we are saved by a Savior, not by a ceremony. Our faith is in that divine personage--that living Lord--and not in items and steps and ordinances. We are saved through faith in Christ and on account of our faith in Christ, and not because of a faith in a plan. Sometimes we are led to fear that some people only have faith in faith, repentance, confession and baptism. . . We must trust his grace and rely upon his blood and look for and expect his healing mercy. To trust a plan is to expect to save yourself by your own works. It is to build according to a blueprint; and if you meet the specifications, your building will be approved by the great Inspector! Otherwise you fail to measure up and you are lost! You could not meet the demands of the law! You could not achieve success!142
Brewer's response to this reader suggests that he had embraced the language of Moser. Baptism, according to Brewer, is the "only overt act in conversion." But it does not supplement faith. Rather "faith is expressed, actualized, and made perfect by baptism." Baptism is faith "reaching out for Christ" and "taking hold of the outstretched hand of mercy."143 Therefore, there is no "plan of salvation" in the strictest sense of the word except the Savior himself.144
The popular intensity of this "plan" construct is illustrated by Brewer in another chapter about the baptismal confession.145 He recalled visiting with an elder, a dying man who recounted his religious pilgrimage. He had always waited for some kind of religious experience to assure him of his salvation, but as he lay dying, he was uncertain of his hope. He proclaimed his belief in Christ and asked Brewer if he had "faith enough to be saved". Brewer quoted Acts 22:16 and called upon him to rely upon the mercies of Christ. He did not doubt the Lord, he responded, but only himself. Nevertheless, he was willing "to give up and obey and trust his grace and help and salvation." After a few more exchanges, the dying man asked to be baptized. Brewer baptized him without asking for a formal confession. After the baptism, the elder strenuously objected that Brewer did not "take the man's confession." The elder pursued the newly baptized man in order to dissuade him of his baptism's validity. Brewer's final comment is enlightening. "The man made the confession that the Bible requires," he wrote, "but he did not make the confession that ritualists require." "Brethren," he added, "do you see the difference?"
"The Gist of Romans" (1957)
Moser practically withdrew from publishing after the appearance of his "Christ Versus a Plan" pamphlet.146 During this time, he worked on his thematic commentary on the book of Romans entitled The Gist of Romans. It was first printed in 1957, with a second edition in 1958.147
The book's theme reflects the emphases of Moser's writing over the past three decades. His concern was still legalistic preaching, and the subtle legalism to which it gives expression. His purpose was to give "an exposition of the fundamental doctrines of salvation through Christ" as they appear in Romans. He was set for the "defense of the cross" as opposed to the defense of the "conditions of salvation, or some theory."148 Indeed, while alot of attention is given to the book of Acts in our preaching because Acts tells us "what was done in becoming a child of God," more attention needs to be given to Romans because it teaches us the "meaning of what was done."149 The preacher, according to Moser, must not only know what to tell someone to do to be saved, he must first understand what salvation is. Only when one understands the "fundamental doctrine of the atonement, of grace, and of faith" can anyone be a gospel preacher.150
The context of Moser's work was the same as his pamphlet in 1952. His introduction to the text of Romans was not historical or critical, but contemporary and theological. It explains the meaning of salvation, the atonement of Christ, the role of the conditions of salvation and the principles involved in salvation (i.e., grace and faith). His polemic is consistent and unyielding. We find here his characteristic emphasis on faith as trust in the crucified Christ. It is not a mere principle of action, but the acceptance of the atonement through submissive trust.151 The condition of salvation is faith, and this faith is expressed through repentance, confession and baptism. These are not a "plan" or a "scheme," but the trusting acceptance of the sin-offering.152 In this context, Moser comments: "One of the most difficult truths for man to accept is that he has a real Savior. He desires that Jesus tell him what to do to save himself. It is astonishing how many and who they are who have such a view."153 This was essentially the view that Moser critiqued in his earlier pamphlet. His criticism from the 1920s to the 1950s had been unrelenting.
While Moser offered this critique of legalistic preaching, his main concern was the theology that lies underneath it. The issue of the "gospel invitation" is a case in point. Moser contended that some, based on the preaching they have heard, might conclude that "we have done our part, we have rendered obedience" as if their obedience was the ground on which God saves them.154 Rather, the issue of the gospel invitation is "Christ crucified, Christ man's sin-bearer, Christ the Savior." Whoever walks down the aisle to confess his faith and be baptized is exchanging "his own righteousness, his morality, and his despair for Christ, for a Savior." He is "not offering his obedience in exchange for salvation," but is "accepting Christ as sin-bearer, Savior, Redeemer."155 The issue, then, rests in whether the act of baptism is a work of human righteousness (even if it is in obedience to a divine command, just as morality is) or whether it is faith accepting the gift of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ. The former is legalism, and the latter is gospel obedience. Moser feared that the former dominated the teaching and preaching of his brothers.
He was not alone in this fear. Despite the fact that in the last year of his life Brewer was contending with digressives who, in his view, were undermining the identity of the Churches of Christ,156 one of his greatest fears concerned the preaching of his more conservative brothers. In the final pages of his Autobiography, which was written in his last months of life, he testified to the same fears as Moser.
I have frequently said that we sing a much better Gospel than we preach. I believe with all my heart that this is true. Too many of us do not preach Christianity; we preach "churchanity." Too many of us instead of preaching Christ, preach a creed. And too many of us instead of trusting Christ, depend upon working out our own salvation as though this means that we should achieve it by works of merit in this life. If we believe the songs we sing, none of us would have this kind of a hope which practically amounts to no hope at all. If we believe the songs that we sing, we will never be doubting our salvation. We will be rejoicing because our names are written in the Book of Life.157
Moser and Brewer, two men who had shared the burden of proclaiming the gospel of grace, both feared the context of the mid-1950s. Both saw the danger of legalism; both saw the need for trusting Christ alone for salvation. The 1960s, with the turmoil of the "Man or the Plan" controversy, saw a brotherhood coming to conscious reflection on the doctrine of grace and a renewal of the doctrine of "God's righteousness" as the ground of salvation.158
Endnotes
24 His first article was "Worship," Firm Foundation 37 (28 September 1920): 3. He published thirty articles in the Firm Foundation in the 1920s.[back]
25 He published his first article "Lukewarm Child of God," Gospel Advocate 62 (9 December 1920): 1187-8. He published only seven articles in the Gospel Advocate in the 1920s.[back]
26 He published only eight articles in the Advocate from 1920 to 1932.[back]
27 He published thirty-eight articles in the Firm Foundation from 1920-1932.[back]
29 Moser, "Life and Death," Firm Foundation 39 (28 March 1922): 2-3.[back]
30 Moser, "Spiritual Wickedness and the Work of the Church," Firm Foundation 38 (15 November 1921): 2-3. "Most modern churches have rejected the principle that demands Bible authority for their practice. . . Most of the modern churches have given themselves over to idolatry, leaving the Church of Christ sadly in the minority, persecuted and scorned, to hold fast the form of sound words and to preserve the standard of morality inviolate. . . The modern church baby is just now learning to crawl."[back]
31 Moser, "Brother Kidwell's Position Reviewed," Firm Foundation 42 (16 June 1925): 2-3; "Final Criticism of Brother Kidwell's Position," Firm Foundation 42 (8 September 1925): 3; "The Spirit of Adoption," Firm Foundation 46 (8 October 1929): 3; "Brother Colley Seeks Information," Firm Foundation 47 (10 March 1930): 3; and "Reply to Brother Colley," Firm Foundation 47 (6 May 1930): 3. He also published "The Earnest of the Spirit," Gospel Advocate 66 (7 January 1926): 7.[back]
32 Moser, "Mission of the Church," Firm Foundation 39 (30 May 1922): 2-3, and "What of the Church," Firm Foundation 42 (12 May 1925): 3. In "Strong in the Faith," Firm Foundation 39 (30 May 1922): 2-3, he condemns those who "enthusiastically" watch the sects skinned, proclaim baptism for the remission of sins and oppose instrumental music, but who have not "been to worship in six months." Rephrasing James, he concludes: "Ye see, then brethren, how that by works a man is 'strong in the faith,' and not only by skinning the 'sects' on the street corners."[back]
33 This is in contrast to Hughes who maintains that in the "late 1920s and early 1930s" Moser had a change of mind on the doctrine of justification ("Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 124). Hughes may be alluding to Moser's admitted change on the way in which he preached Christ. Cf. Moser, "Christ Versus a 'Plan'" (Searcy, AR: Harding Press, 1952), 1. However, based upon his early contributions to the Firm Foundation, this must have occurred early in the 1920s or while he was at Thorp Springs Christian College. Moser gives no specifics as to the exact date of this change.[back]
35 Moser, "How Faith Saves," Firm Foundation 40 (17 July 1923): 3.[back]
36 Moser, "The Righteousness of the Law Versus the Righteousness of Grace," Firm Foundation 42 (6 January 1925): 2-3.[back]
37 Moser, "Eight Ways of Being Saved," Firm Foundation 42 (17 February 1925): 2-3.[back]
38 Moser, "The Relation of Baptism to Faith and Repentance," Firm Foundation 43 (9 March 1926): 3; "Christ our Substitute," Firm Foundation 43 (8 June 1926): 2-3; "Where is the Value of Faith?," Firm Foundation 43 (14 September 1926): 2-3; "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 2," Firm Foundation 43 (28 September 1926): 2; "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 3," Firm Foundation 43 (12 October 1926): 2; and "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 4," Firm Foundation 43 (9 November 1926): 2-3.[back]
39 Moser, "Relation of Baptism," 3.[back]
40 Moser, "Value of Faith? No. 4," 3.[back]
41 Other important articles on this subject from this early period are: "The Principle of Salvation--What Is It? How Is It Determined?," Firm Foundation 46 (22 January 1929): 11; "How Many Conditions of Salvation?," Firm Foundation 47 (22 April 1930): 4; "Saving Faith--What Does It Include?," Firm Foundation 47 (9 September 1930): 4; and "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Gospel)," Firm Foundation 48 (6 January 1931): 1.[back]
42 Moser, "Introductory (The Gospel)," 3.[back]
43 Moser, "How Many Conditions of Salvation?", Firm Foundation 47 (22 April 1930): 4.[back]
44 Moser, "Saving Faith--What Does It Include?," Firm Foundation 47 (6 May 1930): 3.[back]
45 Moser, "Conditions," 4.[back]
46 Moser, "Saving Faith," 4.[back]
48 Moser, "Christ Our Substitute," 2: "The atonement is the beginning point of Christianity. . . it is being so vigorously denied today. . . This is the same old doctrine of legalism."[back]
49 F. W. Mattox remembers that Moser said that he started out as a legalistic preacher who used sermon outline books for his fodder. However, during a severe illness which he believed to be fatal Moser began to read the Bible from a "fresh point of view" and learned that he had not been preaching the gospel. This is based on an interview with F. W. Mattox, August 2, 1993.[back]
50 Moser, The Way of Salvation (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1932). It was reprinted in 1957 by the Gospel Light Publishing Company of Delight, Arkansas.[back]
51 I have failed to find a review article of it (except Wallace's and Brewer's mentioned in the text), and I did not find any advertisements for it in contemporary papers. The only exception to this is a single paragraph of endorsement by R. H. Boll, "Obliterating Distinctions," Word and Work 26 (January 1933): 27. He believed the Moser's book taught "some much needed truth."[back]
52 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., "'The Way of Salvation'," Gospel Advocate 74 (21 April 1932): 494.[back]
53 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Present Truth (Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1977), 1036.[back]
54 G. C. Brewer, "Read this Book," Gospel Advocate 75 (11 May 1933): 434.[back]
55 Wallace, This Present Truth, 1036. G. H. P. Showalter records an incident where Ben Bogard asked him: "What are you folks going to do with Moser?" Cf. "The 'Faith Alone' Idea," Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934): 4.[back]
57 On the importance of Brewer and Wallace among Churches of Christ in the 1930s, see Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., 1993), 131-64.[back]
58 Moser, "Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?," 51 Firm Foundation (6 February 1934): 2; G. H. P. Showalter, "Obedience and Salvation," Firm Foundation 51 (13 February 1934): 5. Moser ("Reply to Brother Showalter," 8) and Showalter ("'Faith Alone'," 4) exchanged replies in the Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934).[back]
59 Moser, "Are Children Gospel Subjects?," Firm Foundation 49 (12 April 1932): 3 was published the week before Wallace's publication notice, and it is the last article to appear by Moser in the Firm Foundation except the two noted above. [back]
60 Moser had apparently planned a series on Romans in the Firm Foundation, but he was only able to publish two articles. Cf. "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Readers)," Firm Foundation 47 (23 December 1930): 5, and "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Gospel)," Firm Foundation 48 (6 January 1931): 3. It is possible that Moser himself discontinued the series in order to write his book. It is also possible that he wrote the book partly because he could not fully express himself in the Firm Foundation. I have been unable to determine which, if either, possibility is the case.[back]
61 Allen, Distant Voices, 163.[back]
62 Moser, The Way of Salvation, 34.[back]
66 Cf. Moser, "Conditions," 4 and "Saving Faith," 4.[back]
67 Moser, Way of Salvation, 57.[back]
68 See the chart titled "The Plan" at the end of the paper.[back]
71 Ibid., 112-24. Brewer, "Read," 434, himself notes that this was Moser's "best work."[back]
72 Way of Salvation, 115.[back]
79 Moser, "Preaching Jesus," Gospel Advocate 74 (1 December 1932): 1283.[back]
80 Moser did not originate this concern or language. For example, J. Edward Boyd, "Preaching the Gospel," Word and Work 13 (November 1920): 337, wrote: "Not a 'plan of redemption,' a 'scheme of salvation,' 'steps of induction into the kingdom,' etc.; not any of these nor all of them, although, alas! such has been the emphasis so often placed upon them that the idea seems not uncommon that they constitute the gospel. Now these are by no means to be ignored or treated with indifference; but primarily and fundamentally the gospel is a message about a person, 'concerning His Son. . . Jesus Christ our Lord'. (Rom. 1:1-4)." This contrasting language is also present in The Way of Salvation, 107-08.[back]
81 His first article was "Nehemiah 8:8," Gospel Advocate 75 (5 January 1933): 18. He published thirteen articles from January 5 to July 20 as the head of this department.[back]
82 R. L. Whiteside, "Preach--What?," Gospel Advocate 74 (29 December 1932): 1374.[back]
83 Moser, "The Issue of the Gospel Invitation," Gospel Advocate 98 (26 March 1956): 302. Moser writes: "The word gospel is not synonymous with truth, or the word of God. Gospel is both truth and the word of God, but so are many other things which are not gospel or glad tidings. . . The 'gospel of Christ' is glad tidings of salvation through Christ crucified, buried, raised for our salvation."[back]
84 Moser, "The Significance of the Kingship of Jesus," Gospel Advocate 75 (19 October 1933): 986 provides a thinly veiled reply to Whiteside: "By this I mean that the power which constitutes him king is the power by which he saves man; his kingly authority relates directly and primarily to his work of salvation. . . He is king not merely to rule over man, but first to save him."[back]
85 Wallace, The Present Truth, 1036.[back]
87 For example, R. L. Whiteside, "Lessons on the Romans Letter," Gospel Advocate 75 (15 June 1933): 558; (6 July 1933): 630; and (13 July 1933): 654. "These were some things that I thought needed to be said at this particular time" (p. 558). This series was later published as A New Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, TX: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), 91-93, 98. Whiteside's opposition to Moser's view of grace was not a reactionary one. He had long held the position which he outlined against Moser. Cf. Whiteside, "A Righteousness from God," Gospel Herald 1 (19 December 1912): 1.[back]
88 Moser, "On Making an Honest Investigation of the Scriptures," Gospel Advocate 75 (13 April 1933): 353.[back]
90 I say this in the light of the personal and theological differences which existed between Wallace and Brewer. The premillenial controversy, which Brewer believed should not be made a test of fellowship, but which Wallace did, was raging at the time. R. H. Boll's endorsement of Moser's book did not help matters. See William Woodson, Standing for Their Faith: A History of Churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J & W Publications, 1979), 123-127; and Hooper, Distinct People, 142-6.[back]
91 Moser, "The Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity," Gospel Advocate 74 (31 August 1933): 823; "Kingship of Jesus," 986; and "Colossians 3:17," Gospel Advocate 74 (26 October 1933): 1010.[back]
92 Moser, "The Naked Gospel," Gospel Advocate 79 (18 November 1937): 1087, 1095. He did not publish another article till "What is the Kingdom of God?," Gospel Advocate 81 (13 April 1939): 354.[back]
93 Allen, Distant Voices, 168.[back]
94 Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 125. Hughes cites an interview with Mrs. K. C. Moser. It was her understanding that Moser was banned from participating on the Abilene Lectures for forty years. J. D. Thomas, however, was not aware of any such ban (interview with Thomas, August 2, 1993).[back]
95 Moser, "Are We Preaching the Gospel?" (Ardmore, OK: Privately Published, 1937). Charles M. Neal, "'Are We Preaching the Gospel?'," Word and Work 31 (July 1937): 138 endorsed the tract and wished "for it a wide reading."[back]
96 Moser, "Preaching," 2.[back]
103 Recently, Bill Love conducted a similar historical project by surveying sermon books within the Restoration Movement, The Core Gospel: On Restoring the Crux of the Matter (Abilene: ACU Press, 1992). While much of the material is useful and he does give us a broad glimpse into the character of preaching among restorationists, there are some significant methodological problems with the book which render its conclusions suspect. See my review in Restoration Quarterly 35.2 (1993): 111-3.[back]
104 Moser, "Are We Preaching," 8.[back]
109 This is one of Moser's examples, Ibid., 8.[back]
116 G. C. Brewer, "'Are We Preaching the Gospel?'," Gospel Advocate 79 (26 August 1937): 798.[back]
117 Moser, "The Doctrines of the Cross," Gospel Advocate 82 (29 February 1940): 205; (14 March 1940): 246; (28 March 1940): 301; (11 April 1940): 344, 352; (25 April 1940): 391; (16 May 1940): 463, 467; and (27 June 1940): 606, 615.[back]
118 "Doctrines of the Cross," 205.[back]
123 Ibid., 467. Evertt Huffard of Harding University Graduate School of Religion, one of Moser's former students, told me that one of Moser's favorite quips was "Not a mite of merit in a million acts of men."[back]
124 Moser, "The 'Power of God' of Rom. 1:16," Gospel Advocate 90 (23 September 1948): 921, 924; "'The Essence of Christianity, According to Paul'--Reviewed," Gospel Advocate 90 (4 November 1948): 1065, 1069; (18 November 1948): 1112-3; and (2 December 1948): 1158-9.[back]
125 I have not found any notice of its existence among contemporary papers.[back]
127 A. G. Hobbs, Jr., "Give the Plan, Brother," Gospel Advocate 90 (23 September 1948): 924.[back]
139 G. C. Brewer, A Story of Toil and Tears of Love and Laughter: Being the Autobiography of G. C. Brewer, 1884-1956 (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1957), 91-101. Part of this appeared as "Confession and the Plan of Salvation," Gospel Advocate 87 (26 April 1945): 233.[back]
144 According to Mrs. Fran Winkles of Abilene, TX, the daughter of K. C. Moser, Moser inscribed a note in the back of his copy of the Autobiography which recalls a meeting between Brewer and Moser in 1939. The note says that they discussed the idea of a "plan of salvation" and that Brewer saw his point. Brewer agreed never to use the phrase again in reference to the steps of salvation.[back]
145 Autobiography, 102-106.[back]
146 I have discovered only one article between 1952 and 1957. Cf. "The Issue of the Gospel Invitation," Gospel Advocate 98 (29 March 1956): 302-3. This theme appears in The Gist of Romans 2nd ed. (Oklahoma City, OK: Privately Published, 1958), xvii-xix.[back]
147 Moser, The Gist of Romans, 2nd edition (Oklahoma City, OK: Privately Published, 1958).[back]
156 See his nine article series "Grace and Law: Legalism and Liberalism," Gospel Advocate 97 (17 March 1955): 205-6; (31 March 1955): 250-1; (14 April 1955): 284-5; (21 April 1955): 308- 10; (28 April 1955): 325-6; (16 June 1955): 493-5; (23 June 1955): 510- 2; (21 July 1955): 632-3; and (4 August 1955): 673-5.[back]
157 Brewer, Autobiography, 151.[back]
158 See the chart on "The Man" which schematizes the contrasting approach to theology. The focus of our preaching and theology must be Christ who saves rather than the plan we follow. As we seek Christ, we seek his will--to trust him, to obey him. But the "man theory" does not rest in achieving righteousness through the plan, but receiving the cleansing blood of Christ by entering the body of Christ. It is not oriented toward doing, compliance or perfection, but toward being, transformation or submissive trust.[back]