DR. ALLEN G. ELLIOTT, M.A., Ph.D., B.Sc., Dip.Ed., is a Western Australian. After spending some years in the field of Education, he entered the ministry, serving as preacher with the church at Subiaco, Western Australia. Several years ago he moved to New South Wales to become Vice-Principal of the Woolwich Bible College, serving the church at Kingsford at the same time. Recently he moved to Burwood, N.S.W., where he is now ministering, whilst retaining his work at the College. Recently Dr. Elliott spent two years in England doing special study and research, as a result of which he obtained the degree o Doctor of Philosophy.

      After a witness of more than a century in Australia, Churches of Christ are in a crucial period of their history. In the earlier, formative days of our Movement, our pioneers were a lone voice, working in an isolation imposed from without and challenging the rest of the Christian world in vain. Today, however, a somewhat different atmosphere prevails in that the very notion of Christian Unity, so strongly adhered to by them, has now to some degree and in a modified way, been taken up by others. Yet the inherent problems of a Movement which avowedly seeks both to evangelise unbelievers and to unite believers are still with us. The future of our churches in Australia largely depends upon our attitude and policy, our faith and spiritual integrity today. We need to ask ourselves whether, in our Planning and propagation of our plea, we have been as "strategic" as we might have been?

      Therefore, in the light of modern conditions, it is imperative that we endeavour to make a re-assessment of some aspects of our past history and a re-examination of the possibilities of the strategy of the future. As individual Christians, in a Movement designed to bring about the Restoration of New Testament Christianity as a means toward the Unity Of all Christians, and hence toward a more effective evangelistic effort for Christ, we need to do much more thinking aloud in the sharing of our peculiar problems. We need to bear more patiently with one another. We need to have more Christian charity toward our own brethren. We need to realise that over the years, we have come a long way as a Movement of New Testament Christians, and that even today there are many aspects of the interpretation of truth in which there is ample room for differences of opinion. We must learn to agree to disagree on minor matters, but at the same time it is imperative that we enter more and more into discussion concerning our intrinsic message--so that at all costs we shall not fail to think with one mind, to speak with one voice, and to present a united witness to the rest of the world both Christian and un-Christian on the real essentials of our plea.

      Our advocacy of New Testament Christianity demands that we "Go . . .and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things" that we have been commanded. It also demands of us that we be "all things to all men"

in the truly Pauline sense of that memorable phrase. This undoubtedly was the fond hope of our forefathers in the faith. Yet it is not by any means the simple task which they envisaged. Our, plea involves us today in a much more intricate and much more exacting programme than any of our pioneers could have appreciated.

      With these things in mind, then, let us look at the Restoration Movement in Australia today from the following viewpoints:

      1. The purpose of our Movement,
      2. The Problems of our Movement,
      3. The People of our Movement,
      4. The Preachers of our Movement,
      5. The Place of our Movement,
                            and
      6. The Power of our Movement.

1. THE PURPOSE--

      What is the purpose of our Movement? Primarily, since we believe that we have been called out by Christ, as witnessing members of His Church, our task is to evangelise. The proclamation of the Gospel is the primary, imperative work of the Church. We have this "ministry of reconciliation". Jesus said. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me". But Christ will not be lifted up unless we lift Him up. "Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel". We have this common obligation and responsibility in company with all others who profess the Name of our Lord.

      Yet, the distinctive feature of the Restoration Movement and the chief reason for our existence as a separate body of believers, is our earnest desire to bring about the unity of Christ's scattered and divided followers. While this has now become a worthy aspiration in the hearts of many thousands--a glorious fact for which we can thank God and take courage--we still have a unique mission. It is here that we have a programme to present that is different from that of all others, in that our God-given plan for the Unity of Christians is through the restoration of New Testament Christianity. The pattern of our preaching and teaching down the years has grown around the two great concepts of UNITY and RESTORATION--or UNITY through RESTORATION. Unity, however, can never be regarded as an end in itself. It is rather a means to a greater end. Just as Restoration is a means to Unity, so Unity is a means to Evangelisation. The preaching of the Gospel, the uplifting of Christ, and the winning of men and women to him is the great ultimate. All else is intermediate and contributory and should tend towards this final goal. Unity through Restoration may be a present objective, but we must always keep the greater end in view "That the world may believe that Thou hast sent me."

      Much more is being said and written today about division in the Church than ever before. This is an interesting sign. It has also been said that division is sin. This was the viewpoint of Thomas Campbell, a viewpoint held one-hundred and-fifty years ago, and a viewpoint tenaciously held by many today. But at best it is only a half-truth. It is far too naive a simplification of the situation. Actually we must probe much more deeply into the evidence in order to realise that division is rather the consequence of sin. If division is sin--then Luther and all the Reformers were sinning when they broke with the fallacious system of the Medieval Church, Wesley was sinning when he set up his Methodist classes apart from the Established Church of England, the Campbells were committing sin when they finally segregated themselves from the Baptist Associations in Pennsylvania. However much we may desire

to justify the actions of Luther, or Wesley, or the Campbells--and we surely can do so--we still brand them as the instigators of a dreadful evil if we persist in alleging that division is a sin. The sin is rather in the bleak humanism, the dumb traditionalism, the blatant ecclesiasticism and the rabid fanaticism that have been the cause of division. Wherever there is sin there will inevitably be division. Sin is not so much an act, or a series of acts, as an attitude. It is the sin of man's attitude of self-sufficiency, even in the face of the authority of Scripture--in the face of the very words of Jesus Himself--that really results in the sad and bitter consequence--division.

      It is equally evident that the preaching of the truth will divide men. Jesus said: "I am not come to bring peace but a sword". As Campbell Morgan has remarked in expounding this very passage: "There are those who know the keenness of it; instead of peace, there is, indeed, a sword. His mission was one of separation in order to the creation of the new, pure, strong, ransomed society, for the accomplishment of His purposes in the economy of God."

      This is an inevitable preliminary to the impact upon rebellious hearts of the convincing, convicting Spirit. But it is this same Spirit who, when channelled through humble, faithful hearts, is also able to bring about the unity that is essential for the winning of men and women--"the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

      The purpose of our Movement is often misunderstood because of the inevitable tension of "either-or" which is really an integral part of our witness. Because our pioneers wanted to abolish all divisions and unite all communions, they were ostracised by the religious community of their day and eventually found themselves in the very position of virtually making another division and of becoming another communion.

      This same dualism confronts us when we inquire into the end, aim, or final purpose of our Movement. Because our forefathers desired to develop a movement within the Church, circumstances forced them, even against their best intentions, to become also a movement, separate, and though still within the Church, yet outside of the current stream of ecclesiasticism. Following this thought to its logical conclusion, we may well ask ourselves whether we are not still in an existential "either-or" situation?

      On the one hand, in order to be a voice at all in the councils of the Christian world, we must build up a movement large enough, strong enough, forceful enough and strategic enough--to be taken notice of. For unless we are sufficiently dominant to be heard, our whole effort will have been futile.

      On the other hand, the aim of our Movement is also the development of a larger fellowship of spiritual and practical unity with other believers whom we eventually hope to influence by our distinctive witness. It is just this "exclusive-inclusive" situation which creates a major difficulty in our thinking and in the practical application of our plea. In fact, it is extremely hard at times to know exactly where we are going, chiefly because of the nature and intricacy of the problems that confront us.

2. THE PROBLEMS--

      Undoubtedly there have been considerable changes in the religious world since the beginning of the Restoration Movement. The original plea for unity of our pioneers took into consideration only one aspect of division, that in the realm of doctrine. Yet the experience of the years has shown us that differences among Christians fall into at least three general categories.

      (i) Differences of Teaching, or doctrinal divergences, involve the basic faith of believers, about God, Christ, man, the Church, and resolve themselves into differences of theological interpretation.

      (ii) Differences of Tradition, or cultural differences, arise from divergent historic and geographic backgrounds, from contrasted social and economic outlooks. They include differences of nationality, language, education and social status rather than of theology.

      (iii) Differences of Temperament are also dependent on background and environment as well as disposition. Tastes and inclinations frequently determine whether a person will worship liturgically with the Anglo-Catholics or vociferously with the Salvation Army. A man's temperament will also decide whether he will be found in the mystic contemplation of the Quakers or in the ecstatic ferment of the Pentecostalists.

      All of this renders the problems relating to unity even more complex. So much so that it must be admitted that in all the current efforts toward unity an adequate basis is still lacking. The solution we have espoused, that of examining all proposals in the light of the New Testament and the New Testament alone, still stands. Yet it is becoming increasingly evident that we are not really making much practical headway towards the ultimate goal.

      Perhaps the over-simplicity of our plan is the main reason for our failure. We have urged that the only way to overcome un-Christian division is to "go back to the New Testament". Yet that is just what many denominations, who differ from us, sincerely claim to have done. We believe that the only way to unity is by restoring the Christianity of the New Testament. Yet the New Testament represents a very extensive body of truth, the adequate explication and interpretation of which is no easy task. We could not hope to restore every aspect of New Testament fellowship. What we have always advocated is the restoration of the essentials, allowing complete liberty in the matter of non-essentials. The chief difficulty here, however, has been that among the great body of believers outside of our Movement there has been scant agreement on what may rightly be regarded as essentials.

      Then comes the other vexed question: When we enunciate what we believe to be a minimum statement of essentials on which all Christians may unite--are we in effect formulating a creed?

      We overcome this objection, to our own satisfaction, in a facile way, by our slogan: "No creed but Christ", but we still must have a basis of agreement. Christ is certainly a "Personal Creed" in contradistinction to mere intellectual codes of mental assent required as denominational creedal bases. We rightly stress this--but how can we persuade Christians outside of our Movement to believe this, unless we truly LIVE our Creed--unless we LIVE CHRIST--unless, with Paul, we who profess New Testament Christianity today are able to say, "For me to LIVE is CHRIST"?

      There are those among us who believe that in our own witness, and as far as is humanly possible, we have restored the essentials of New Testament preaching and teaching--and that Christian Unity will only eventuate when all believers accept this basis.

      In fact, until the emergence of the modern Ecumenical Movement, at Amsterdam in 1948, we were all heartily agreed upon this. Since 1948, however, there has developed a new and different point of view amongst us which interprets our own churches as constituting a movement within the total Christian Church, attempting, through

confrontation and conversation with other believers, to discover together the essential road to unity.

      Few have been able to appreciate the fact that these two views, though certainly divergent, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The problem remains as to how we may apply the two principles involved without falling into obscurantism on one side and compromise on the other. And surely, if we continue much longer in this impasse wherein we fail to see the viewpoint of our own brethren who disagree with us, it is difficult to see how any of us will ever unite with anybody.

      A further factor also arises when we press the all important point that a reasonable and adequate interpretation of the meaning of unity is laid down by the apostolic writers under the direction of the Spirit and the delegated authority of Christ.

      Then there are those who contend that our aim as a people, logically, is total and utter extinction--a merging into a larger World Church whatever that might mean. But should we not urge more caution and deeper thinking here? Isn't there a danger, for those who think this way, of attempting to run so far ahead, with such headlong irresponsibility, as to cut themselves off completely from the whole genius of our Movement--which, if it has any contribution to make it the arena of unity, should be sufficiently virile and self-conscious to make a strong and impressive impact upon believers who have never seen or interpreted the New Testament in the light of our plea? In fact, this aim of a diminishing progression in the nebulous direction of extinction, or absorption into a larger body, has been a rather unfortunate and insidious "parrot cry" for the last few years. It is a platitude of spiritual penury, a tacit acknowledgment of impotence: and too many of our people are beginning, to believe it.

      We must face facts. It is patent that we have been much less virile and positive as a people, both in Australia and also overseas, since the inauguration of the modern Ecumenical Movement. While this fellowship has prompted most of the larger denominations to greater self-consciousness and loyalty, it has virtually had the opposite effect upon us, so that we have been correspondingly weakened. This should not and need not be so. To deliberately and unequivocally create conditions whereby our existence as a body of believers becomes unnecessary is certainly, at this stage in our history, not in the best interests of the plea we advocate. In fact, nothing could really be more futile or more tragic. There are few people who can work up much enthusiasm about joining a cause that is bound for extinction! This is dangerously negative. It negates all that our forefathers strove after. It virtually negates all that is really "of the New Testament" in our movement. "Absorption" is not a solution to our problems. "Re-union" of "churches" is no real substitute for the "unity" of "believers". Such notions in no way interpret Christ's prayer, "That they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee". Surely we still believe that we have a unique plea.

      We have claimed to speak "where the Scriptures speak", and on matters of pure doctrine, and in citing basic principles rather than marginal and unimportant details, we have been fairly near the mark: but, in restoring the life and daily witness of Christians of the First century, we have often been sadly inarticulate. Many in other communions, we must admit, have been more faithful and more zealous in living up to that which they believe than have we. We have a vital contribution to make towards the unity of Christ's followers, but we can only make this contribution when, we are used as channels of

New Testament teaching, fellowship and life.

      In our Australian churches today there is unfortunately a too evident disposition to take "partial" views of the problems of unity, which could easily result in sub-Christian relationships between brethren. Too often among us there have been those who have strained the bonds of Christian brotherhood by showing scant regard for the divergent views of their own brethren--while at the same time going to the length of un-Christian compromise in order to maintain an unjustified and overweening "tolerance" toward virtual "unbelievers" outside of our communion. Before we can hope to influence those of other communions who may differ from us, we must set our own house in order, and at all costs endeavour to seek unity and harmony with one another. Before we can witness in the larger field of Christian Unity to the doctrines we believe we have learned of Christ in the New Testament, we must LIVE Christ, and manifest His spirit among our brethren.

      Another difficulty that has confronted our churches in recent years is the problem of "giving offence to denominationalists". We really need a new technique and a new approach that will still give adequate provision for a positive declaration of our viewpoint without compromise. There are no short cuts to the unity for which we plead. Certainly we should get to know believers in other communions, and they should get to know us. Otherwise there can never be any real opportunity of presenting to them our distinctive witness.

      Undoubtedly, there have been those among us who have had but one line of approach toward believers outside of our communion--that of deliberate rudeness. Such an attitude is both uncalled-for and un-Christian. On the other hand there have also been those in our ranks who have run for cover at the first wild cry of "Sheep stealer! " while there are others again who decry any form of what they term "proselytising". They say, with reasonable justification, that there are enough people unsaved and outside of all church affiliation to whom we may address our appeal without endeavouring to win these who are already in other communions. Yet, how will we ever convince those in other communions of the validity of our position unless we have the opportunity of presenting it to them?

      Moreover, it should be patent to all that in the early days of our Movement, in U.S.A., Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, our chief gains, nay--almost our only gains--were made through "proselytising". Furthermore, we may venture to suggest that there never would have been a Restoration Movement, there never would have been any Churches of Christ in the modern sense, unless our forefathers had openly proclaimed the plea to denominationalists. This was strategic preaching for them. Such preaching naturally called out large numbers into the early New Testament churches. Look back to the leaders of our own Australian churches a generation or two ago. Almost to a man, they came out of other communions and by conviction became New Testament Christians. Today we have largely lost this emphasis. Can we equate such loss and such evident lack of positive direction and spiritual power with a growing tendency in our midst of a desire to please men rather than God?

3. THE PEOPLE--

      We live in a world vastly different from that of our pioneers. They little realised the implications of the plea they initiated, influenced by the Philosophy of Locke, mediated by the Scottish Common Sense School, their provincial out-look merely served to reinforce an insularity which was part and parcel of their generation. We too live in a small world, but by contrast it is a world grown smaller because of the growth of the mind and the energies of men. Today, as never before, the centripetal pull of all peoples is making for a compact technological world, in which atomic power is materialistically moulding man to its own mechanistic whims and fancies; yet a world in which only the Gospel of Christ will ultimately prevail.

      Professor Arnold Toynbee has awakened us to the fact that our civilisation, like all other cultures, has within it the seeds of its own decay. The last fifty years have witnessed great conflicts--Ideological tensions, National tensions, Economic tensions, Spiritual tensions; the clash of colour, the struggle between Imperialism and subject peoples, the industrial turmoil between Capitalism and Socialism--and the battle to the death between Christianity and mounting secularism.

      Is it possible that while we have preoccupied ourselves with academic questions relating to Church union, men and women have been dying without Christ? Would the so-called "heads" of the Protestant "Churches" be shocked out of their pretty dream if it could be conveyed to them that the greater proportion of the human race in this 20th century has no concern or interest in Christianity anyway?

      Let us be realistic for once. We've told one another for years that the world is concerned and shocked at the scandal of our divisions and that the average man doesn't know which church to join. Don't you believe it. Instead of mixing and mingling with men to see just what they do think, Christians have gone into a super-ecclesiastical huddle--and the rest of the world has gone by unconvinced, unconcerned and uninterested. A thousand million Asiatics know nothing of Christ. One-fourth of the world's population under the Kremlin has no concern with the Church and its divisions. The world about us is frankly pagan!

      The trouble with most of us is that we just don't know how the other half of the world lives, and many of us don't care. But Jesus cares! Yet, so often the people can't see Him because we are standing in the way. It's time we awakened to the fact that even in the churches the question of union, especially as it has been debated in conferences, has been largely a "clerical" preoccupation, and the great bulk of members of Denominations would be united tomorrow but for the ecclesiastical theorising and temporising that has beclouded the issue.

      The masses outside the churches are almost entirely indifferent to our message. The impact we are making on them is practically negligible. They are not worried about our differences. They neither want us nor the Church. But if they could only see Christ through us, it is just possible that they might respond to His call.

      But why can't they see Christ? Simply because He is so half-heartedly presented.

      Consequently, an important factor that determines everything we would attempt to do is the vitality and spiritual awareness of the people in our churches--the modern New Testament Christians. Are our standards adequate? Is the quality of our witness such as to commend the plea we advocate? Upon the dark background of the all-pervasive paganism of our generation, are we kindling an unquenchable flame for the Lord and Master whom we profess to serve? In other words, can we hope for "Christian" unity at all if the quality of our living is less than "Christian"?

      When we impartially examine our

Movement from these aspects, we must surely realise our inherent weaknesses.

      (i) First of all, there are more so-called Christians of the New Testament order today than ever before. Our Movement has become more widespread and there has been a consequent lack of real spiritual depth, so that standards of disciple ship are not what they were even a generation ago. Therefore we need to devise more direct methods of intensive indoctrination and the inculcation of higher and more worthy goals in Christian living and service.

      (ii) Secondly, most of our members today are busier and better educated than their fathers. They live in a more complex society and have many more "secondary" interests which tend to crowd out Christ and active allegiance to His Church. With increasing opportunities for leisure of a purely materialistic character, modern church-members have become an easy prey to the demands of an advancing secularism. Moreover, multitudinous organisations of the world are in daily competition with the Church and make grave inroads upon the spiritual intensity of our people.

      (iii) Then too, the folk in our churches in these days are less homogeneous and more diverse in background than were their forefathers. Perhaps this is not so noticeable in externals, but there are wide divergencies in spiritual characteristics, particularly when we recognise that many of our members today are second-, third-, and fourth-generation New Testament Christians, coming originally from a great variety of denominational backgrounds and traditions. And these very backgrounds and traditions, repressed a generation or two back, have an awkward habit of cropping up in the temperament and theological outlook of our present-day membership.

      Formerly, members of Churches of Christ were in the main thinkers, who, by conviction knew exactly what they believed and why. Business and professional men, as well as preachers, have contributed in a remarkable way in the past to the growth of our work in Australia. Today, however, we have not the same time or inclination to think deeply or study systematically. We are virtually a nation of "Digest" skimmers and "Comic Strip" addicts. The great bulk of our people are no longer members of Churches of Christ by conviction. Their standards and loyalties in regard to the brotherhood and our historic plea are very often "second-hand". They are merely "associate" members, counting their allegiance to Christ and their church affiliation not as the primary and paramount concern of their lives, not as their most vital experience and relationship, but rather as one of the many interests they have acquired in a civilised community.

      Possibly the most disturbing feature confronting New Testament Christians today is the "famine of the Word of God." The Bible is a neglected and all but unknown book. The New Testament is a notable "classic", often highly spoken of, but seldom read. The reason for so much apathy in regard to the real issues of the Christian faith, even among professing Christians, is the fact that the Bible is no longer interesting to people and is virtually a closed book. While missionary converts in underprivileged lands have devoured the Word, those at home, in smug satisfaction, have forgotten it. Despite the colossal labours of scholars in preserving the authentic Word, despite the amazing work of translation undertaken by the Bible Societies, despite the tremendous task of Dr. Frank Laubach and others in the realm of Linguistics--the Bible is still not read and known as it should be.

      This is a particularly serious

situation for those who believe that the only valid road to effective unity among Christ's followers is through the restoration of the kind of Christianity practised in the pages of the New Testament, of course, some will say that it As merely a reaction away from the early blatant dogmatism of our forefathers with its attendant limitations. Yet we still live in an extension of this very atmosphere. How bravely we cling to the old cry: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak!" What a travesty! Certainly, a magnificent clarion call--if only it were true, in practice! Not by any reasonable standard could we today be regarded as a Bible people. In many passages where the Bible speaks trenchantly we are strangely silent. Because some have gone to seed on extreme issues in the realms of Prophecy and Eschatology, we have soft-pedalled in these vast fields of Biblical truth. On questions of practical Christian conduct--we have been little more than "man-pleasers". In the controversial field of Church government, we have blindly assumed that we have had all the truth. Under the cloak of a "congregationalism" scarcely supported by Scripture, embryo "popes"--in spirit though not of course in name--have tyrannically and fanatically dominated many of our churches and reduced them to spiritual bankruptcy and impotence. Is this speaking "where the Bible speaks"? Is this New Testament Christianity?

      All of this leads us to pause and take another look at ourselves. Those who should be leading us in Christian Education need to reassess the situation. We must use all our resources and speed up all efforts to cope with this need. "Austral Graded Lessons", as published today, are far from adequate to meet such a crisis. Adult Education, per medium of the "All-Age Bible School", as developed with remarkable success in some places in America, must be adapted to suit our Australian requirements. The Federal Literature Committee surely has a task here also, and every field must be explored so that in our churches in this generation we shall see the growth of an informed, vibrant, spiritually-alert, people, an awakened, Bible-loving, responsive community, on fire for Christ.

      This is strategic Christianity.

4. THE PREACHERS--

      Over many years the churches in Australia have had grand leadership from many of their preachers. It is equally true, however, that our Australian brotherhood has also suffered sadly from ineffective and irresponsible leadership.

      Today, as never before, in the local congregation and also in the wider field of brotherhood activities, leadership largely devolves upon the preacher. It is therefore imperative that we have the most efficiently and effectively trained preachers we can possibly obtain. We need men of outstanding character and ability, who will count no sacrifice too great for the sake of Christ and His Church.

      Responsibility, in our churches today, is largely equated with remuneration for services rendered. That is, the paid preacher, or the full-time preacher, means the responsible preacher, from the human point of view. Every man called to preach, it would be understood, is responsible to God. Otherwise he should not preach at all.

      Much of the irresponsibility in leadership in our earlier history can be traced to voluntary service, rendered very often by those ill equipped and unsuited to the task. It is good, therefore, that we have outgrown this unstrategic phase. However, while we should be gratified that leadership in our Australian churches has largely fallen into the hands of the trained ministry,

we must also guard against two possible dangers.

      (i) one is the growth of a "professional" ministry. This will be obviated by the spiritual depth of the training programme and the careful selection of ministerial candidates. Only men whose primary allegiance is to Christ, and then to His Church, are adequate to the task.

      (ii) The second danger is the gradual disappearance of what we have called the "mutual ministry", the co-operative effort of the capable men of the churches. We shall prevent the decline of this important phase of our work by the encouragement of our Christian Men's Societies, so that the valuable leadership of business and professional men may become complementary to the work of those who have devoted their lives to full-time service.

      We must also always keep our eyes fixed firmly upon the New Testament standards of leadership and of preaching the Word. We will find the true qualities of leadership and service here, rather than in the social attributes that so often go to make up the "successful minister" or "popular cleric" so dear to the heart of modern denominationalism. We must be strategic, but strategic for Christ.

      In the early days of the Restoration Movement in our land, the men who pioneered our churches made a magnificent contribution. Their preaching and their leadership certainly proved to be strategic for their day. They preached in the streets, in public parks, and in hired halls, and they organised sturdy and vigorous congregations of New Testament Christians under difficult and trying circumstances.

      Then came the splendid influence of the American evangelists from the Disciples' churches; men of the calibre of Earl, Gore, Surber, Carr, Haley and Maston, who, by preaching, teaching and organisation, gave stability and growth to the churches and proved the value of a full-time, supported ministry.

      They were followed by the phase in which promising young Australians trained in American Disciple Bible Colleges and returned to serve in their native land.

      The great advance came, however, with the inauguration of the College of the Bible, at Glen Iris, with a definite programme of effective ministerial training, wholly supported by Australian churches. In more recent years this task of training preachers and missionaries for full-time service has been extended by the courageous effort on the part of the churches in New South Wales to inaugurate a Bible College in their own State. So the work must go on, and as our Movement continues to grow throughout Australia, we should be big enough as a people to be able to envisage the day when we shall have four or five colleges, all under the direction of Federal Conference and ministering to the growing needs of our churches, each with possibly slightly different emphases, yet all contributing to the one great purpose, in a diversity enriching the whole. In this way we would be in line with our American brethren, with their group, of accredited Disciples' Colleges and Universities, all under the administrative direction of a Board of Higher Education.

      This de-centralisation in training would be most beneficial in widening the interests of our Movement, and would overcome the obvious and inevitable tendencies toward inbreeding, insularity and isolationism invariably attendant upon training programmes limited to only one or two institutions.

      The Australian brotherhood is already becoming sufficiently large and financially strong to contemplate such a strategic programme in the training of preachers.

      Specialisation in ministerial training is another matter that we need to consider. In our influence and work we are chiefly limited to the middle group in the community, our impact upon the "down and outs" the "city mission" constituency, or what we might call the proletariat, that strong body of working class families whose religion is trade unionism--is similar to that of all communions--practically nil. Similarly, our influence on the great unchurched at university level, among the so-called intellectuals, the "up-and-outs", is equally negative. As an answer to this limitation, we must consider more intensively the specialised training of selected men for these very fields. This implies specialist service, on the one hand in streets and factories, on wharves and at pit-heads, and in the highly industrialised areas where Churches of Christ and their plea are absolutely unknown--and on the other hand, in universities, teachers' colleges, technical and agricultural colleges, law and medical schools, where the Christian viewpoint is so often unpopular and where New Testament Christianity, as we know it, has never been presented.

      Again, there is a patent need amongst us for the development of more positive preaching, that is at once Biblical and expository. We must train men who are alive with a message, fearless platform and pulpit personalities, well-versed in radio and TV techniques, and with ability and confidence to face large audiences. We have never really attempted to do this. We have never gone to the places where the crowds really are. We have waited for them to come to us--and we have waited in vain. The vital presentation of Christ should be the biggest and most challenging message of our day, and we have been committed and commissioned with the task of making it known. To do this effectively, our theology must go deeper. For too long we have been content to paddle in the shallows. If we really are a Biblical people, we require a Biblical, theology. Our men need to present an over-all picture of how the Word of God may be communicated to the vast community outside the immediate influence of the Church.

      In our interpretation of the vital truths of Scripture we have never outgrown the swaddling clothes of our early forefathers, whose outlook was based on the limited needs of their day. Though our message may be the same, our methods and presentation must be streamlined to meet new situations. We cannot hope to capture the ear of the people of our day with the idioms of the early 19th century.

      A brief enunciation of the Plan of Salvation, an interpretation of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and a few passing references to Christ's prayer for unity--these are important, but they are not enough. Too often our preaching has majored on themes in isolation, not fully integrated into the over-all structure of the Word of God. The whole revelation of God to men must form the basis of our preaching and teaching. Only really good preaching, only really great preaching, will uplift Jesus Christ. There is a world of difference between the role of a "speaker" and that of a "preacher". We must produce more preachers. Too many of us give "talks" and deliver "addresses".

      We "present ideas", but our real task is to "Preach the Word". We have become altogether too "topical" and not sufficiently "textual". We have offered "edification", but the people need "exposition"--of the Word.

      Only this is strategic preaching.

5. THE PLACES--

      Then there are the places where we witness.

      As a movement we have stemmed from very humble beginnings, and

unfortunately the smallness of our origins has often cast a dampening and depressing shadow upon our notions of spiritual progress. In the early 19th century, our churches in Great Britain and the United States developed slowly under cramped calvinistic influences which we have never completely forgotten.

      The internecine quarrels--albeit within a body of people claiming Christian unity and aspiring to the unity of all believers--in regard to petty externals, such as the use of instrumental music and methods of co-operation, stultified the Spirit of God in our midst. Likewise the worship of austerity--for its own sake--as though ugliness were part of the New Testament plan--and the dread fear of anything beautiful in worship or in buildings, greatly restricted the early effectiveness of our witness.

      The result of this outlook was the erection of glorified "barns" as meeting places. Certainly no one would wish to suggest that we ought to worship bricks and mortar, or that thousands of pounds should be wasted on non-utilitarian architecture, but a sense of balance should be preserved. Today we have moved away from the ultra-calvinistic notion that the more stark and uncomfortable the building in which we worship the greater will be our spiritual perception. Yet, we still have our "barns"--but more modern ones all window-glass, over-hanging eaves and no walls--and often no real amenities for the job we are doing.

      It is imperative that we seek the happy medium in building chapels and school halls, so that we may strive to erect functional, tasteful buildings, properly equipped, pleasing to the eye, engendering in all an atmosphere for worship and service to God--to Whom we should endeavour always to render nothing but the best.

      Another relevant factor is the position of the church building in the community.

      What an unmerited blow our Movement has received from the unthinking, short-sighted brethren who have denied to our city churches a central, strategic witness. We deserve our cause to become marginal and unimportant if we deliberately choose the back-streets and by-alleys for our meeting places. What sort of stewardship sanctions the main street and flood-lit public thoroughfare for the conduct of our business--and an obscure, dingy side-alley in which to propagate the King's Business?

      The witness in Canberra, our Federal capital, is rightly the responsibility of the whole brotherhood. But it should be equally appreciated that the strategic witness in the large capital cities of our Commonwealth should also be the enthusiastic responsibility of Federal Evangelism. Perhaps the most damning indictment upon our movement in Australia has been--and still is--our quaint shyness, almost amounting to distaste, for publicity. There are thousands of people in Australia who have never heard of Churches of Christ. There are vast areas where we have never been represented, where people do not even know of our existence.

      Fortunately, however, we are beginning to move. In Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide, strategic centres are being planned and developed so that in the years to come, in these places at all events, the thinking masses will be able to learn of our Movement and the things for which we stand. We must accelerate in this field. No longer can we be content with tenth-rate sites and tenth-rate enterprise. Again and again we have found money for less worthy and less strategic projects. Again and again our Home Missionary Committees, in every State, have literally poured money into lost causes. Again and again small, narrow-visioned groups

of half-hearted people have been pampered with subsidies--while teeming metropolises and vital concentrations of population have been neglected and ignored.

      In all our publicity--in the position of our buildings, in the types of buildings we erect, in the use we make of man-power, of modern inventions, such as films, radio and TV--in the effective presentation of our message through our literature--in all of these avenues, we must be more realistic and more strategic.

6. THE POWER--

      It is doubtful sometimes whether we, as a people, fully realise the grand heritage that is ours. Amid the welter of varying viewpoints and interpretations that have been current in religious thinking over the last decade or two, the relevance of our message, handed down to us by our Restoration pioneers, has been partially obscured. The message we proclaim is significant for our time simply because it is the timeless message of the New Testament. Herein lies its power. Moreover, the power of the message we present is virtually the spiritual power of our Movement. That is why we need to take care, lest we confuse the apparent progress of other communions with the real purpose and power of the Spirit of God.

      The Church of the New Testament was unique in power. They had none of the modern amenities and organisation which we possess; but they did have the one thing which we so sadly lack--POWER.

      The First century churches also differed from our churches in several other important respects.

      (i) They possessed no written New Testament documents. The New Testament writings were still in the Process of compilation.

      (ii) They had no plea for the unity of believers. All believers were united in Christ and one with another. The incipient divisions of which Paul spoke were only manifest in the local congregation in Corinth. Denominationalism was not known as we know it today.

      (iii) They had no self-consciousness about the preaching and teaching of Baptism. Only penitent believers were baptised and apparently no method of baptism was known or practised other than immersion.

      The problems that disturb us are virtually all post-Reformation problems. Prior to the Reformation there were those who disputed the authority of individual New Testament books, there were those who broke from the unity of the Church, and there were also those who departed from the original practice of baptism--but these in the main appear to have been limited to local minorities.

      Our very preoccupation with these developments since the Reformation has probably diminished our sense of spiritual power--the power of the Holy Spirit in the daily life, the strategic power of the early Church. Today we must regain something of that original power. We need to convince ourselves that every organisation is second-rate compared with the Church. We need to recognise that if as much energy and drive were put into the personal winning of men and women to Christ as is put into abortive, protracted, non-scriptural "discussion" on unity, without any disposition toward the practical application of New Testament principles in Christian living--we would be a much greater channel of spiritual power.

      We need to realise that if some of our people would put as much effort into active, personal, positive witness for Jesus Christ--as they put into the Masonic Lodge, World Rotary, Apex, the R.S.L. and other kindred organisations--

how much more practically effective our work would be. We would not wish to be misunderstood. It is not suggested that these organisations are not good--but that they are secondary to the Kingdom and to the main task. They cannot take the place of the Church, but they often do. We cannot afford the "good" to crowd out the "best". We must exercise a sense of spiritual balance. Strategic Christianity must be the Christianity of power and only the power of God can prevail.

      Lack of power is the chief reason for most of our difficulties. When first things are no longer first, when the Gospel is not the dominant passion of the people, we know that we need to get down on our knees before God and seek afresh His Power. This, in the final analysis, is the strategic place the place of prayer, the place of power. It is here that the fires of evangelism burn brightest. The history of our Movement in Australia teaches us many lessons, but above all, we learn, as we review the growth of our churches, that the greatest days of development have invariably coincided with periods of aggressive evangelism--and whenever in our history evangelism has lagged our Movement has gone back. This is the power we need, the power that, through us, challenges, convicts and converts men and women for Jesus Christ.

      This is the POWER of the SPIRIT of GOD--that informs and enlightens our Purpose, our Problems, our People, our Preaching and the Places where we witness. This is strategic power.