E. L. WILLIAMS, graduated from the College of the Bible in 1928, then proceeded to the Melbourne University, graduating with Master of Arts Degree. Ministries with Churches in Victoria and Auckland, N.Z. followed. Mr. Williams commenced lecturing at the College of the Bible in 1939 and was appointed Principal in 1945.

      At the World Convention in Melbourne in 1952, it was decided that we should undertake some studies as members of Churches of Christ.

      Following each Convention the Central World Convention Study Committee selects six subjects from a number suggested by study groups around the world. A number of study groups situated in different countries apply themselves to each of the subjects. Each prepares a paper along the lines suggested by the Central Study Committee. Each paper is then submitted to a Select Committee. From these papers the Select Committee prepares a statement on each subject, which attempts to reflect the common mind of churches of Christ Study Groups around the world.

      This last statement is then submitted to study groups which meet during the next World Convention. There will be twelve such study groups at Puerto Rico in 1965.

      After the Edinburgh World Convention the following 6 subjects were selected from 155 suggestions sent in from 60 study groups in different parts of the world.

      Biblical Authority for Today.
      The Nature and Place of Worship in the Church.
      The Nature and Work of the Holy Spirit.
      The Ministry of All Believers.
      Churches of Christ Within Ecumenical Christianity.
      Christianity in a Revolutionary Age.

      Since the Edinburgh Convention, in 1960, three study groups have operated in Australia. One in New South Wales convened by Eric T. Hart; one in South Australia convened to begin with by K. J. Patterson, B.A., B.Comm., and later by James A. Luff; and one in Victoria convened by E. Lyall Williams, M.A.

      This pamphlet contains the findings of the Victorian committee, and the basic authorship is by Principal E. L. Williams. It is hoped that later we might be able to publish the other two studies.

I. THE COMMON ACCEPTANCE OF THE BIBLE

      The Bible is truly ecumenical because it belongs to all, is used by all and its authority is accepted by all. It is normative because it is accepted as mediating the mind and will of God as finally revealed in His Son. Striking witness is made to the ecumenical character of the Bible in the ecumenical work, "Biblical Authority for Today," published in 1951. "In this book we, as members of different Christian confessions and denominations, living in different parts of the world, have made an attempt to read and interpret Holy Scripture together. We could not have done so unless our common starting point had been the Bible, which bound us together even before we knew each other personally. In all our churches

      around the world, the Bible is read and its message proclaimed in preaching, in liturgy, in fellowship and in service: the message of man's salvation through Jesus Christ, our Lord" (p. 7). "There is no question of an alternative (still less rival) authority to the Bible in the Church's tradition, in 'natural law' or the like" (p. 12). "The Christian's authority lies in the will of God. It is agreed that the Bible is our common starting

point, for there God's word confronts us . . . It is agreed that, although we may differ in the manner in which tradition, reason and natural law may be used in the interpretation of Scripture, any teaching that clearly contradicts the Biblical position cannot be accepted as Christian" (pp. 240-1).

      In the light of the fore-going, the principle of catholicity as emphasised by Churches of Christ is seen in their strong insistence on the final authority found in the Scriptures. Historically this insistence of Churches of Christ has been highlighted in Thomas Campbell's maxim: "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." Within the "tradition" of Churches of Christ this has been variously interpreted. This openness to different interpretations is evidence of its insufficiency.

      At various times and among various groups this has been interpreted to mean that we can have nothing in the life of the Church for which there is not a "Thus saith the Lord." This is a most limiting rule and one under which it is well-nigh impossible to escape inconsistency. A counter interpretation allows for healthy growth and expediency. We may introduce into the life of the Church whatever is not contrary to what is a clear "Thus saith the Lord." In other words: where the Scriptures speak we can speak with authority: where the Scriptures are silent we do not speak with authority but allow the operation of commonsense, opinion and liberty. However the maxim be interpreted it seems clear that its original purpose was to emphasise the finality of the Scriptures. Whatever is clearly given in principle in the Scriptures is binding and nothing that is contrary to given principles can be accepted. While we think the form of the statement is out-moded, the principle it enshrines is not.

      We should never lose sight of the qualification re Biblical authority first notably enunciated by Alexander Campbell in his sermon on the Law in which he made a clear distinction between the Covenants. Final authority is found in the New Testament as the book of the New Covenant, for here we are confronted with the finality of Christ.

      Churches of Christ are not distinctive, but catholic in pleading the authority of the Scriptures. Any distinctiveness is derived from (a) the seriousness and exclusiveness with which they emphasise the authority of the Scriptures, (b) particular interpretations; and (c) particular applications of commonly accepted principles.

II. THE FINALITY OF THE BIBLE

      For all religious people the final authority is Deity however understood. Hence, for Christians the final authority is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. His mind and will have been finally and perfectly revealed in Christ. The New Testament derives its finality from Christ. This collection of writings is placed in a class apart from all other writings and accepted as normative because it is the primary witness to the facts of revelation which centre in Christ.

      Paul Tillich may be taken as representative of various theologians when he writes: "The New Testament is the document wherein there appears the picture of Jesus Christ in its original and basic form. All other documents from the Apostolic Fathers to the writings of present day theologians are dependent upon this original document. In itself the New Testament is an integral part of the event which it documents." ("Systematic Theology", vol. II, p. 134.)

      The uniqueness of the Apostolic witness is derived in part from the

particular position of the Apostles. Their intimate association with their Lord gave them an advantage even over their contemporaries and succeeding generations of disciples can never stand where they stood as witnesses to the Lord."

      The promise that the Spirit would bring to their remembrance the things that Christ had said could be fulfilled only in the life of the Apostles and the further promise that the Spirit would guide into all truth, even if this be claimed as a general promise to the ongoing Christian community, was first fulfilled in the lives of the New Testament writers. This primary fulfilment of the promise must be accepted as normative. That is, any later guidance of the Spirit would not contradict what was first given and later claims to guidance must be tested by the primary witness.

      Promises of guidance and claims to inspiration are abundant in the Scriptures, but these in themselves do not make the Bible authoritative. No theory of inspiration can endow the Bible with authority. Neither can any pronouncement of Church or Council impart authority to the Scriptures. The authority of the Bible is not derived from any seal on the document. Churches of Christ at their best, while emphasising the fact of inspiration and the authority of the Scriptures, have never committed themselves to any particular theory of inspiration. In this sense they have been beyond "Fundamentalism."

      Claims to inspiration are accepted on the basis of the quality of the Scriptures and the authority of the Bible is derived from this same quality. The finality of the Bible stems from the quality of the Person Who stands at the centre of the book. It provides "the authority that truth exercises over the mind, and goodness over the conscience, and love over the heart and affections: the authority that true Manhood exercises over men, true Personality over persons:"

      The Church existed before the New Testament and authorised it. That is, the Church set its seal upon the New Testament as a sufficient and authentic witness to the Apostolic tradition which enshrined the facts of revelation. These facts were not bare events, but interpreted events. They were first preserved in the oral, Apostolic tradition and the Church was subject to the authority which resided in these facts. When the New Testament was authorised as the accepted record of the Apostolic tradition it derived its authority and finality from those same facts which were before and beyond the Church.

III. THE PROBLEM OF TRADITION AND INTERPRETATION

      There is little question that differences among Christians are in part due to three things. (a) The acceptance of varying degrees of the authority of tradition as supplementary to the authority of the Scriptures. (b) Different interpretations of the given in the Scriptures. (c) Different applications of accepted principles given in the Scriptures.

      The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community is the commonly accepted basis of the tradition of the Church.

      Tradition has been defined as the living stream of the Church's life, but it is important to recognise various shades of meaning. For some the tradition means preserved beliefs and practices going back to Christ and the Apostles but to which the Scriptures do not bear witness. Tradition in this sense is a supplementary stream and bears a supplementary authority. Another meaning is that tradition is the Church's interpretation of what is given in Scripture. An extension of this is that tradition

is the guided development of things given in the Scriptures. A further meaning of tradition is the Church's judgment and practice on matters not given in the Scriptures.

      While Churches of Christ have theoretically eschewed tradition, there is no question that they have lived by their traditional interpretation of what is given in Scripture and by traditional practices, methods and habits in areas on which the Scriptures give no precise lead. This latter may be described as the tradition of expediencies. There is no escaping the operation of tradition in some sense in the life of the whole Church or in the life of any communion.

      The interpretation of the Scriptures gives rise to tradition in some sense and at the same time a particular tradition influences the interpretation of the Scriptures. We cannot escape the conditioning processes of denominationalism nor the circularity of relationship between interpretation and tradition. Different interpretations are very much determined by the weight given to certain passages of Scripture as against other passages and all this is due to varying pre-dispositions of reason and feeling.

      The finality of the Scriptures in itself does not solve the problem of interpretation. As the Scriptures are authoritative only at the point of understanding the only answer to the problem of different interpretations is the acceptance of the common understanding. Within Churches of Christ emphasis has been laid on the consensus of qualified, consecrated scholarship. Others have turned to the mind of the Church--the common and prevailing interpretation as given by the whole Church.

      However we describe the common mind, as consensus of scholarship, the Church, the tradition, there are some limitations that must be recognised. There is not a common mind on all points and even where there is it is not necessarily a unanimous mind. Room must be found for differences and minorities. Further, the common mind may change on some points at least. It can only serve as a guide and cannot be absolute. While the tradition in the sense of the common understanding provides a working authority, the whole needs the corrective of responsible private judgment even as private judgment needs the corrective of the fellowship of the whole church. In face of our divisions a further difficulty of the common mind is that of distinguishing the tradition of the Church beyond the traditions of the churches.

      The authority of tradition is derived from and tied to the finality of the Scriptures. While we cannot allow tradition any authority in itself, not even a supplementary authority, it plays a very important part in the economy of authority at the level of interpretation and practical application. The authority of tradition at this level is very real. There should be no separation of the Scriptures and the Church. It is the Scriptures as set down in the midst of the living community which are authoritative for us today. They must always be interpreted in the light of their historical context, with strict attention to the question, "What is the esse of the Church and the Faith, and what is only temporary and expendable?" The prime message of the Scriptures concerns redemption through Christ. The starting point of any interpretation is from within the redeemed community which produced the Scriptures as the primary record of the dynamic, redemptive activity of God. The community dare not move away from the Scriptures, but the Scriptures function aright only in the community of the Spirit.

IV. THE APPLICATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

      The Bible provides authority for the whole life and mission of the Church and for the whole life of the members of the Church. It is an authoritative witness to the facts of the faith which Christians must confess and the facts of the faith to be proclaimed as the gospel. By its authority the ordinances of the Church must be observed. While not giving a blueprint in details it enunciates principles which must govern worship, ministry and organisation of the Church. By principles and precepts the Bible provides the moral standard for Church and members in their whole personal, social, economic and political life.

      In individual life the application of Biblical authority is through the pressure of the individual's conscience, but where the individual is involved in the life of the Christian community and this community is involved in the life of the individual the whole community must take steps to apply authority.

      If the application of authority is to avoid an authoritarian character it must arise from within the whole community and be embraced by the community as its own law.

      There is no question that in applying authority tradition is used as a practical authority in mediating Biblical authority. The common understanding, the mind of the Church, is expressed in the tradition. As a living authority under the given and final as found in the Scriptures the Church applies authority through the tradition. This tradition consists of the common understanding of the given in the Bible and expedient practices deemed necessary in the life of the Church and not contrary to Biblical principles.

      With this understanding of tradition we should see it as dynamic rather than static. The common understanding and expedient practices need to be constantly checked and kept up to date. We must give ourselves to that discipline of mind that will make us ready to re-think questions we have believed to be solved. Tradition should not be a dead hand of the past but a living voice of consecrated, qualified, spiritual scholarship.

      As the mediator of Biblical authority the Church establishes terms of membership which must be fulfilled by those who would enter and be recognised as members of the Body of Christ. Conditions are also laid down according to which a local congregation shall be received into and recognised as a part of the whole Church. By establishing rules of practice in relation to ordinances, ministry, organisation and practice the Church acts as an authority and seeks to apply authority. It also seeks to promote standards by teaching and discipline and, not least, by the simple pressure of traditional convictions or spiritual "atmosphere."

      The moral and religious authority as exercised by the Church can operate effectively only in a responsible society. If an individual or a local congregation is responsible and responsive the non-legal pressure of moral appeal is effective. Where the sense of responsibility and responsiveness to the whole is lacking there are many points at which authority cannot be applied. We believe that instances are not lacking where irresponsible individualism has undercut proper authority in the life and practice of Churches of Christ.

      Alexander Campbell pointed up the need of a living authority to mediate the final authority of the Scriptures in the local church when he wrote in "The Christian System" (147): "It is not the will of Jesus Christ, because it is not adapted to human nature, nor the present state of His kingdom as administered in

      His absence, that the church should be governed by a written document alone. Hence in every city, town and country where the Apostles gathered a community by their own personal labors or by their assistants, in setting them in order, for their edification, and for their usefulness and influence in this world, they uniformly appointed elders, or overseers, to labor in the word and teaching, and to preside over the whole affairs of the community."

      Here is a pointer, in principle, to the application of the same kind of living authority in the life of the whole Church.

      The necessity of the Church to act as a living authority in mediating and applying the final authority which is found in the New Testament is surely what was meant by Professor Lowber of The Disciples of Christ when he wrote in "Struggles and Triumphs of the Truth," 1888: "There is a tendency among Protestants to dis-regard the authority of the church and to look upon it simply as a moral society. The Disciples believe the Church is divine, and that it is as important to obey the bride as the bridegroom."