IT should be clearly recognised that the question of authority is crucial for Christian unity. We shall make little or no progress on the road to unity without settling the question of authority. From the beginning members of the Restoration Movement have turned to the witness of the New Testament to find final authority. When we establish an authority and settle on a common ground of appeal, however, there is no absolute guarantee of unity because we are still faced with the problem of interpretation. The acceptance of an absolute authority is, in itself, no guarantee of unity.

      Many Christians find their final authority in the witness of the Scriptures, but for all that are divided into different groups and denominations. We have to recognise that one's interpretation of any given fact, proposition, principle or commandment is the point of authority for him. Each can only and must, obey according to his understanding. There is no escape from interpretation and in the interest of unity the problem has to be faced. Within our movement it appears that an attempt has been made to meet this problem in three complementary ways.

I. Unity Upon Facts

      One suggested way of meeting it is to accept facts without interpretation.

      Following the lead of Alexander Campbell a fact is understood as something done or said. This position was clearly stated by Campbell in the "Christian System," p. 90 and 96. " 'Fact' means something done. The term 'deed,' so common in the reign of James I, is equivalent to our term 'fact'" "All revealed religion is based upon facts. Testimony has respect to facts only; and that testimony may be credible, it must be confirmed . . . By 'facts' we always mean something said or done. The works of God and the words of God, or the things done or spoken by God, are those facts which are laid down and exhibited in the Bible as the foundation of all faith, hope, love, piety and humanity" etc.

      Where there is an act clearly described or a clear statement given by the Scripture we have a fact. For instance, "Christ died" is a clear description of an act, an event, something done. This is a fact. The remaining part of the sentence, "For our sins," is a clear statement of Scripture interpreting what was done. Here is something said. This also is a fact within the terms of our definition.

      In this clear testimony we have the fact of the atonement.

      It should be observed that a clearly established Scriptural interpretation or "theory" of something done is regarded as a fact. It is only when interpretations and theories go beyond clearly established Scriptural "theories" that we are in the realm of human theories and opinions.

      On the basis of Scriptural facts we may be united. If we g beyond clear, Scriptural testimony we find ourselves divided by human interpretations and theories. Therefore, let us unite on the facts.

      There is no question about the measure of service rendered by such a suggestion as this, but it does not wholly meet the case.

      The human mind is ever asking questions--often questions beyond its own power to answer. It pursues meanings to the bitter end. Man is not content to accept facts without pressing an answer on every possible meaning of every fact. There is also the problem of establishing satisfactorily for all minds all essential Scriptural facts. Then the various facts have to be pieced together into a coherent whole. Finally, the facts have to be applied to life situations. All this means there is room for difference and division beyond the area of unity upon clearly established facts.

      Another attempt to meet the problem of differing interpretations is the suggestion of

II. A Universal Understanding

      Where there are difficulties of interpretation, while accepting the ultimate authority of the Scriptures, let us seek an immediate authority in the common understanding of the Scriptures as we find such throughout the Christian age and world.

      The question raised on a point at issue is whether there has been a consensus of judgment among Christians down through the Christian era and is there a consensus of judgment among Christians today? This is not a popular mind, but the mind of consecrated, qualified scholarship.

      If there be such, let it be our guide. Let the authoritative position of a united body be determined by this understanding or common mind.

      The application of this principle may be illustrated in relation to the thorny question of baptism. Is there a common mind to be found amid all the traditional differences on this ordinance? It seems clear that there is. All down the line and all through the churches today the validity of the immersion of believers into Christ unto the remission of sins is accepted. Here is a universal upon which we may be united. The acceptance of alternatives leads us into particulars and division.

      We have to recognise that the common mind is not necessarily a unanimous mind. It is representative rather than unanimous. It is also important to recognise that the authority of the common mind is only immediate and relative. It is not an absolute. History furnishes us with ample illustration of the common mind being wrong. At any particular time the individual or the minority may be right. The common mind may change. But at any particular moment in history we must accept the guidance of the common mind. The mind of the minority cannot serve as the immediate authority.

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

      Our divisions destroy the interpretative function of the Church. In isolation and division from one another we miss truth and our vision is distorted. It is the recognition of this fact that leads to the ecumenical emphasis upon ecumenical conversation, confrontation, and consultation. We have to sit down together to discover truth. A significant statement is found in the preface to "Biblical Authority For Today." Every confession looks at the Bible from the point of view of its own tradition or customary ways of interpretation. Were it not so, there would be no need for ecumenical Bible study at all. Even the 'detached' or 'disinterested' standpoint of liberal scholarship turns out, upon examination, to be but another 'tradition.' The fact is that the believing attitude of Christians towards the Bible and its message is always mediated to them by the particular church or community from which they have received it . . . But . . . It has been our experience--and one for which we are profoundly grateful to God--that, when an ecumenical group sits down with the Bible open before it at a specific passage, there emerges a common agreement concerning what the Holy Spirit wills to speak through this Scripture. When the passage has been expounded, and all have made their contributions, there arises a broad and illuminating understanding about its meaning and relevance for us today!' (pp. 10-12)

      However, we are still faced with the fact that there are matters on which there is no common mind, and there is a persisting minority even where there is a common or majority mind. Another step has to be taken in the attempt to meet the problem of interpretation. This brings us to one of the most important parts of our witness:

III. The Principle of Liberty

      There is no "official" statement on the principle of liberty as held by our people, just as there is no "official," statement on our position as a whole. One can only draw on the ideas and watchwords which have gained currency in our tradition.

1. Defining the area of liberty.

      In all groups which boast the principle of liberty the problem arises of defining the area of liberty. Liberty without limits is licence. No true doctrine of liberty envisages lawlessness. If we are to avoid anarchy and misunderstanding, the area of liberty must be clearly defined. Various watchwords and distinctions indicate the attempt to define the area and point the way.

a. Essentials and non-essentials.

      We have caught up and made use of the old dictum: "In things essential, unity; in things nonessential liberty; in all things, charity." This is helpful as a general guide but it always leaves open the question as to what is essential and what is non-essential.

      Is there to be liberty on this point? A difference as to what are essentials and what non-essentials is likely to cause division.

      The simple distinction between essentials and non-essentials is not sufficient in itself to define the area of liberty. Some qualification and amplification are found in another distinction current among us, namely, the distinction between

b. Facts and theories.

      Some may say facts are essentials while theories are non-essentials, but where is the line to be drawn between essential facts and nonessential theories?

      We have already noted the definition of a fact as something done or said. Where we have a clear Scriptural description of an act or event, or a clear Scriptural statement we have a fact. If we may call up the illustration previously used, "Christ died for our sins," we see a Scriptural description of something done and a clear statement interpreting the event. The Scriptural interpretation or "theory" is a fact. Any Scriptural "theory" is a fact. Now the question arises, how did Christ die for our sins? What is the Scriptural theory of the atonement? If this can be established the "how" of the atonement becomes a fact. There are those who are quite sure of a Scriptural theory of the atonement. To them, such a theory is a fact. But different theories of the atonement are derived from the Scriptures. Others are not convinced that a clear Scriptural theory is given. Hence the line between fact and theory becomes debatable and uncertain. Therefore, the distinction between fact and theory is not sufficient in itself to define the area of liberty.

      A further attempt to define the area of liberty is found in the distinction between

c. Faith and opinion.

      It has been common among us to regard opinion as consisting in matters which are of no consequence. This, however, throws us back on the distinction between essentials and non-essentials. What are things of no consequence? Opinions differ on this point. We need to go deeper.

      Some lead is given to us in the suggestion that there can be no liberty regarding matters connected with salvation or things clearly commanded.

      Opinion relates to matters not established as facts, or facts connected with salvation, or not given by commandment.

      Faith consists of clearly established facts connected with salvation and/or coming to us under commandments. The fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God is a fact clearly testified by Scripture as connected with our salvation, and is the centre of the faith commanded. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." As Campbell put it: "The belief of one fact, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation . . . The one fact is expressed in a single proposition--that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah." Christian System," p. 101.) In the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:38--"Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," we have repentance and baptism presented as facts under commandment connected with salvation. Paul connects faith and confession of Jesus as the risen Lord with salvation: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Here are clearly established facts definitely connected with salvation and coming to us under commandments. These are matters of faith concerning which there can be no liberty.

      One illustration will suffice of a clearly established fact, not connected with salvation but coming to us under a commandment. This is the case of our Lord's words regarding His Supper: "This do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:10) Concerning any such fact coming to us under a commandment there can be no liberty.

      This brings us to the conclusion that essentials are facts in which the faith consists, that is, facts connected with salvation and facts coming to us under commandment. Non-essentials are matters not clearly established as facts, and facts not connected with salvation and facts not coming to us under commandment. Where there is a clearly established principle or precedent this has the force of a commandment and there can be no liberty to take any course which is manifestly against the principle or precedent. In the complexity of life differences may arise about the exact application of a principle or precedent. Here is a field in which liberty must apply. With this understanding we can say: "In things essential, unity; in things nonessential, liberty."

      Having attempted to define the area of liberty we turn to the task of

2. Describing the area of liberty.

      On various matters there is simply no common mind. This points to uncertainty in the evidence. There is no clearly established fact, so there is room for theories and opinions. Both on these questions and on others, where facts are reasonably established, there is the further point that they are not connected with salvation and do not come to us under any commandment.

      Particular items in this area of liberty are: dates, authorship and the nature of biblical books; millennial theories; theories relating to immortality and the destiny of the wicked; methods of worship; moral questions such as the Christian's attitude to war; social and economic questions; matters of methods of evangelism and organisation of Christian work.

      What can we say of miracles, the resurrection, theories of inspiration and theories of the atonement? I definitely believe that the facts of miracles, including the virgin birth of Jesus and His resurrection, the atonement and inspiration are clearly established. I further believe that the facts of the resurrection and the atonement are connected with salvation. This makes these latter facts essentials of the faith. They are inextricably bound up with our faith in Christ--our Creed. But the question of the kind of body with which Christ came forth from the grave is one on which there is room for differences of opinion. The same is true concerning theories of the atonement. The fact of the atonement is clearly established in the combined statement: "Christ died for our sins, and rose for our justification." When the question of how Christ died for our sins is raised we move into the realm of theories beyond any clearly established Scriptural theory. Thought has varied from age to age and from one thinker to another. Through all the varying thought, what is common to all is the fact of Christ's Saviourhood both in thought and experience. Christ has saved and saves not because of one's theory of the atonement, but, maybe, in spite of it. In these areas of theories there is surely room for liberty.

      While the facts of inspiration and miracles are clearly established, taught and believed, we must note that there is no commandment relating to these and they are not connected with salvation. The Scriptures make claim to inspiration but there is no over-all statement as to how inspiration takes place. The means of communication in some particular cases is indicated, but this leaves untouched the great mass of material. This leaves us in the realm of human theory and ecclesiastical dogma. Such matters cannot be given creedal status.

      Our emphasis on "No creed but Christ" has carried with it the principle of liberty. Not that liberty of creed means that we may believe anything or nothing. We nave tried to give point to the truth that our faith is Christ-centred. It is essentially a response to a Person. Of course there can be no escaping the doctrine of the Person, but we have eschewed metaphysical questions and theological definitions concerning Him as well as other doctrines and theories which enter into the system of Christian faith. Hence we do not make such things as miracles, inspiration, theories of the atonement, the nature of Christ's resurrection body etc. touchstones of the faith. These are not made articles of a creed. They are not included in the creedal question and confession as a test of fellowship. We simply ask the question: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?" and we accept that confession as the only faith essential to fellowship.

3. Liberty of expression.

      The principle of liberty demands liberty of expression. No unity is safe that is built on suppression. Only the practice of liberty of expression can save us from the disturbing shock of different points of view.

      We have traditionally placed a restriction on liberty of expression, saying that matters of theory and opinion should be held privately. In pulpit and press only those things should be expressed that are most surely believed by all.

      It is true that there are opinions which one need not and would not want to preach or publicise, but want if one develops an idea which to him a burning conviction of truth? Should he not be free to express it without fear or prejudice? Was not this the very thing that the pioneers did? They presented original ideas over against what was most surely believed and accepted. If it be argued that they were justified because they passed from tradition to truth, the argument carries the assumption that we now possess all the truth rather than that we are still seekers after truth. Such liberty of expression would undoubtedly mean the presentation of some error. In spite of plea for the preaching only of universals, originality and individuality have asserted themselves and theories of all kinds have been preached and publicised among us.

      It seems that we can only rely on truth to preserve itself in a field where originality serves progress, and liberty serves unity.

      Of course there can be no departure from the principle that no opinions or theories should be imposed on others. All expressions of liberty should be subject to discretion, and should be expressions of positive faith and creative purpose.

      4. The synthesis of authority and liberty.

      Authority standing alone is no guarantee of unity. Many people who walk in different ways, and organise themselves in different bodies all own the authority of the New Testament.

      A unity based on authority alone can only be a totalitarianism in which there is no liberty of thought, expression and life. This will not work. There are always rebellions and secessions. Initiative cannot be restrained. Authoritarian unity may provide a fine logical ideal, but it does not meet the life situation.

      On the other hand, liberty without authority means licence and anarchy. It will not produce unity.

      Authority and liberty are antitheses. Their synthesis involves a tension. It is like walking a tight rope. We find it easy to fall one way or the other. The art is to maintain the tension. It is the genius of the Restoration Movement to maintain the balance and preserve the tension of authority and liberty, with authority saving us from divisive humanism and anarchy, and liberty saving us from a rigid totalitarianism which is a yoke that many refuse to bear.

      E. L. WILLIAMS, graduated from the Federal College of the Bible in 1929, then proceeded to the Melbourne University, graduating with Master of Arts Degree. Ministries with churches at. Boronia, Hawthorn, Ponsonby Road, Auckland, and Ivanhoe followed. Mr. Williams commenced lecturing at the College in 1939 and was appointed Principal in 1945.