By way of introduction brethren, wish to express My appreciation at being asked to introduce this session on Christian Unity, and also my apprehension that I shall not do justice to such an important subject. You remember the story of the man who read through the dictionary from cover to cover, and then, when he had finished, commented, "There was great variety in it but very little plot." Obviously he had been expecting the wrong thing, and as a result had been disappointed. My starting point then must be to clearly state my purpose in case you too are disappointed.

      It is not my task to give you a history of the Ecumenical movement. Nor is it my task to speculate on the possible outworkings of any movement toward unity. Nor do I have to guess what kind of Christian community we will have when unity is finally achieved. In other words neither past nor future is my field tonight--my concern is the present.

      To be even more specific. At the fraternal meeting two months ago I raised this question by pointing out the ludicrous situation that appears to have arisen, when in a movement such as ours, an amendment suggesting an Ecumenical approach to the Baptists is unanimously voted out of conference. In itself this happening may be of no great moment, but I believe it to be at best, confusing, and at the worst indicative of a grave deficiency in our spirit, our thinking, our sincerity and the value of our contribution to the Ecumenical movement.

      We hear too, many glowing accounts of our movement--its heritage from the past; its hope for the future. Are these reports true? Are we a people with purpose or passion? Are we adrift on the sea of Ecumenical encounter without compass or chart? We know not where we are going, and even if we do know where we are going, we have lost the dynamic that would take us there.

      "What of our plea?" you say. The Declaration and Address? The passion of the Campbells? 'With these we are like a dog and a choice bone that he has buried in the back yard and then cannot find. We scuffle and scratch but the truth remains that we have lost what we once had.

      Why? Why should this happen in less than 150 years? The reasons are there--if we are prepared to face up to them. And I believe that until we do face up to these reasons AND do something about them we shall be a people of no destiny. I want you to think of these reasons as I see them.

Over-simplifying

1. We have been guilty of over-simplification.

      To over-simplify is often to falsify, or, at the very least, to reduce in significance and value.

      The Restoration of New Testament Christianity has been our anthem, and we have sung it in sharps and flats as though it were the complete and only harmony.

      We urge Restoration as if it posed no problems and presented no difficulties. It does both. I believe in the Restoration of New Testament Christianity as a principle, but

      ONLY as a starting point--our people have used it as if that phrase in itself was the complete answer to a divided Christendom, but is it the complete answer? Amongst other things it needs interpretation to make it meaningful.

      What was the New Testament practice in regard to ordination? Just how far can we depart from the New Testament orders of the ministry? We have never worried very much about these things. Why? Because our tendency to over-simplify has led us to identify the Principle of Restoration with the pattern of church life as practised by Churches of Christ.

      Over-simplification is keeping us from seeing the real problems that confront us. When we talk of divided Christendom we commonly think of baptism, the Lord's Supper, and clericalism, and probably not much more, as the main factors of division. This demonstrates an insufficient grasp of the theological factors which divide us. Biblical authority is far more crucial, so is the doctrine of the Church.

      But even beyond these, as one of the Faith and Order reports makes clear, there are non-Theological factors which are equally responsible for keeping us apart. Just to list some of these shows that difference in social status of varying communions, especially in small centres has to be reckoned with. Different standards of permissible social behaviour as far as personal conduct, corporate behaviour and methods of raising money, differing traditions of worship, the social atmosphere varying from extreme friendliness to cold reserve, the difference in material assets possessed by different communions, conservatism, nationalism--these and many other factors are part of the problem of disunity.

      I believe we will have to face up to the fact that the principle of Restoration is not a blue print--precisely for the same reason that the New Testament itself is not a blue print. The principle of Restoration is better regarded as a signpost; it tells us the direction we must take and perhaps the distance we must go.

Following a Tradition

2. The second reason is that our tradition is second hand. Just as the son might inherit his father's trousers, so many of our people have inherited their religious 'convictions.' But if the son is not the man his father was he won't fill the trousers nearly so well! Alexander Campbell and his associates took the principle of Restoration and applied it. In their hands it became alive and virile. Alexander Campbell asked himself what Restoration meant in terms of Baptism. It took him two years to find the answer--but find it he did. Our people in these early days applied themselves to research and discovery. We have stopped where they stopped--as if they had done the whole job. And as a result our movement has stagnated. We can expect little else when much of it's thinking was done over a century ago.

      This is fairly well demonstrated, I think, in the general reaction to the question, 'Why do you belong to Churches of Christ?' The answer; will vary. Because Mum and Dad always went to the church of Christ. Because we just happened to go to the club or Bible school. Because I like their service or the preacher. Because I think that they do things in the right way. But I doubt whether you will ever receive the answer--Because I believe in the passion for Christian Unity which brought them into being, and the Principle of Restoration which they seek to live out in the life of their own communion and offer as a guide to the Ecumenical movement. It is demonstrated even more obviously when you ask, 'What do Churches of Christ stand for?' The answers now become hopelessly vague, irrelevant and incorrect.

      Added to this lack of understanding of the true genius of our movement is a misunderstanding of the Scriptural and non-Scriptural elements of our life and worship as Churches of Christ. Much of what we do receives no sanction from the New Testament. Many of the practices of other communions receive no prohibition. But often we feel that what we do must be right, simply because we do it and wherein others differ from us, they must be in error. I can't help feeling that the warning of Clive Bell is pertinent when he said, 'There is a danger that respect for tradition might develop into worship of convention.' And so it has very nearly become with us. Our glory is the past.

A Message for Today

3. The third reason follows quite naturally from the second and can be said thus. Over the years the ground of Ecumenical discussion has shifted--but our conversation is still the same.

      It is rather like someone discussing the discomfort of travelling from Australia to England in a ship such as Captain Cook's "Endeavour," whilst overhead roars one of the flying boats that does the journey in two days. Take baptism for example. A century and much less ago the great argument about baptism as between different communions was whether baptism in the New Testament ever took a form other than immersion of believers. Our polemic in those days was thus rightly directed toward proving that believers' immersion was the only Scriptural practice.

      Today the bulk of the world Christian scholarship has come to accept these things, thereby, we believe, making Christendom more effective and reducing the difference between us. But having rejoiced let's stop presenting an outmoded case--for there is still much that needs to be said--and our message for this day and generation is still pertinent, if only we will come to grips with it.

Love Thy Neighbour

4. The fourth reason is more unpleasant. We have been guilty of lovelessness toward our neighbour.

      We have engaged in something of that same pettiness of spirit and action characterised by denominationalism at its worst, and which makes division both sinful and pitiful. On the one hand we declare that we are not a denomination, and on the other we enter into denominational egotism, rivalry and bigotry. We have magnified our virtues and overlooked our faults--anyway the other fellow has all of them. We have frequently lacked understanding and tact in our dealings with men of other communions. We have been ready to remain out in the field like the elder brother, and complain from a distance when, if we but loved our brethren, we should first come into fellowship with them and then speak of our differences.

      What I am pointing to is a lack of charity in our spirit. A hardness and a sarcasm that should not be there. I could not help but be impressed by the words of John Wesley. "If they heart is right, as my heart is with thy heart, give me thy hand. I do not mean be of my opinion. You need not. I do not expect it nor desire it. Neither do I mean 'I will be of your opinion.' I cannot. It does not depend on my choice. I can no more think than I can see or hear, as I will . . . though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt we may. Herein all the children of God may unite notwithstanding these smaller differences, These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and good works." We would feel it necessary to say far more than that, but unless we speak in that spirit what we say will do no good.

      I think often our wrong spirit shows itself when we refer rather disgustedly to church statistics printed in the newspapers. We are classified with the also-rans as 'others' and we resent it. The result being that we, tend to be jealous of the prestige and priority given to other movements.

Searching Methods

5. The fifth reason is that we have lost our passion for the truth.

      We are no longer primarily concerned with seeking the truth we believe we have it. To search further is asking too much and might prove too upsetting. We have claimed to be searching for the truth about Christian Unity and how it might be accomplished.

      But are we really sincere in that claim? Someone has said, "The danger with seeking the truth is that we may find it--AND BE FOUND OUT BY IT." Ecumenical advances are already such that new avenues are opening up--new problems are being brought to light--new possibilities are appearing. It is rapidly becoming evident that if Christian Unity is to be achieved, then it will not come about because everyone comes to accept the position as advocated by one communion in its entirety. It will demand on the part of all communions confession of error. We will not be exempt. We shall have been mistaken about some things. But if we seek truth it will not really matter. What I am saying then is that the movement of thought in Ecumenical circles is already such as to condemn our attitude on many a local level. Brethren, the truth about Christian Unity will appear, have no fear, and that truth will judge us, as I believe it is doing even now.

Know the Book

6. The sixth reason is that we do not know our Bibles.

      We are a people of "the book." What book? you might well ask. For there must be many books that our people know more about than the Bible. Christianity claims a degree of finality and revelation which makes it dependent for it's life on the witness to this final revelation. The primary historic witness is the Bible. Therefore the Christian must be nurtured in the Word. But we, who depend on the Bible not only as authority but as sole or final authority, should be even more well versed in that Word.

      Our approach to the Bible is anything but an educational approach. We should be constrained to teach an overall philosophy of the Bible. To present the doctrines it teaches. And so on.

      The reason Biblical ignorance has to do with our plea is simply that it was Bible study that gave direction to the passion of our reformers. It is the message of the Bible that convicts us of the sin of division. It is the teaching of the Bible that shows the way back to unity. Christian Unity is a passion of the Bible. If our people got it from the Bible they would no longer feel that Christian Unity is the hobby horse of a few preachers. And, of course, the value of our voice in Ecumenical discussion will be proportionate to our grasp and understanding of the Bible as a people.

Are We Ignorant?

7. Finally our people are ignorant.

      I do not mean that they are ill-mannered. Perhaps my own early experience is sufficient illustration of the point. When I went into Glen Iris I had been a member of Churches of Christ for some ten years. In that time I had learned nothing about our movement and what we stood for. I did not know who Alexander Campbell was. I was not conscious of ever having heard the words, 'Restoration Movement.' It's quite probable that this was largely my fault, but not altogether, for I was certainly never subjected to a sound educational programme concerning the things that made us a people. This ignorance breeds conservatism. An unwillingness to change the pattern. Too often we hide this conservatism under the banner of preserving the truth, when all we are doing is saving ourselves the unpleasantness of revising our thinking, and adapting ourselves to new situations.

      I believe this ignorance is breeding professionalism. Our people are coming to rely more and more on the trained ministry for the things they don't understand or are not interested in. They dismiss the real problems of our faith and practice, as if these things were the province of the specialists.

      This ignorance must be dispelled because if unity is ever to be achieved it must be achieved at the local level. Church leaders might negotiate unity, but it is the people who must live in unity. And for that to come about our people must be thoroughly educated in all that Christian Unity involves.

      These then are the reasons as I see them. I know they are not comprehensive. They may not even be the most important. But I believe they are real and valid. And if that is so, surely, our response ought to be as it was on the day of Pentecost, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" It's at this point that I wish someone else could take over, for while the problem can be seen quite clearly, the solution does not appear so obvious. But because I know many of us honestly face this problem, here are some factors which I think are part of the solution.

Facing the Facts

a. In the first place, we preachers should be convicted about Christian Unity.

      In other words we should have a passion for the whole of our plea. And remember passion is not measured by the volume of sound we make, or the vigour with which we thump the pulpit. Passion is measured by our singleness of purpose; by the intensity of our concern; by the extent of our sacrifice. If we have not this passion then, I believe, we have no right to occupy our pulpits. Call ourselves Methodists, Baptists, anything--but not Churches of Christ.

b. We should lead our people to see, with humility, how we have failed in the past.

      While we continue to boast our achievements and glorify our movement we shall be in the wrong frame of mind to accomplish anything.

      We must acknowledge our sin and develop within our people the recognition of a need for something more than any one part of the divided Church of God can provide.

c. We must take ourselves and our people to the study.

      Our position as a people needs to be reinterpreted for our own age, as indeed it needs to be reinterpreted for every age. we need to settle down to study the N.T. and determine just what is given and what is not given. To determine to what degree a N.T. practice may be the expression of a deeper principle, and therefore in itself not permanent, to study the message of our people in all its fulness and richness, to become familiar with other communions and their teachings.

      It is essential that we know what keeps us apart before we can do anything about it. In teaching about our differences we need to stress our kinship in the great doctrines of Christendom. We should recognise our indebtedness to other communions: to the Baptists and Congregationalists in securing freedom from State control; to the Methodists for recovering the great evangelical doctrines; and to others for their contribution to the Christian world.

d. We must develop within our people a great flexibility.

      We are too dogmatic and too often incorrect. We can see nothing beyond our own way of doing things. We need to be prepared to modify both our manner of worship and our organisation if need be. No one communion is the custodian of all truth and therefore we must be prepared to modify and revise.

e. We must begin to live our Christian Unity at the local level.

      I have already stressed this need. The movement toward unity might begin with our church leaders, but it must end with our people. In our relationships with other communions, in meeting the needs of our community, in speaking the Word of Life there are opportunities for Ecumenical adventure.

f. We must look for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

      Christian Unity is surely the will of God; it was certainly the prayer of Christ. The purpose of God will not always be defeated; the prayer of our Lord will be answered. But it will be under the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Therefore we must be alert to His ministry and ready to obey His leading.

      In conclusion, we might suggest some ways and means by which these things can be brought about. A course of sermons each year on the various aspects of Christian Unity. Workshop or study programmes on our movement, other communions and the Ecumenical movement. Ecumenical camps at the youth level, the preacher's level, and the congregational level. The cultivation of a more kindly and sympathetic attitude toward other communions and their representatives. The use of literature on this subject. The exchange of pulpits. The support of the World Council of Churches--not, mark you, because it is the last word in Ecumenical advances, but because it is the expression of the Ecumenical movement in this day.

A New Approach

      The whole point of this paper, brethren, is an appeal to us as members of Churches of Christ to take a new approach to the subject of Christian Unity. An approach in which we stop pointing the finger at other communions and turn to the task of setting our own house in order.

      J. ERIC GOUGH is a West Australian, and graduated from the Federal College of the Bible, Glen Iris, Vic. in 1952. He recently completed a ministry with the Claremont W. A. church, and is now doing a Studies in Education course, and exercising a part-time ministry with the church at Midlands Junction, W. A.

Opinions expressed in this series are the author's.

In Faith--Unity. In opinion--Liberty.

This Department shall be entrusted with the publication and distribution of Literature designed for:
      1. The spreading of the Gospel;
      2. The deepening of the spiritual life of the church; of the aims of the Restoration Movement. (Victoria-Tasmanian Constitution)