I never met the man of whom I write but he was a graduate of one of the Christian colleges before the turn of the century. He was a diligent student of the Bible and a devoted disciple of the Master. It was his desire to follow in the path of righteousness and to do all things pleasing unto God. As he read the sacred pages he became aware of the fact that the primitive saints constituted "a church of the upper room." Jesus ordained the Lord's Supper in "a large upper room furnished and prepared." After the ascension of Jesus the apostles and others abode in an upper room. In Troas the saints were gathered together "in the upper chamber." The brother to whom I refer constructed a two story building and during his lifetime the congregation met to break bread upstairs. This was deemed essential in order to "do all things according to the pattern."
I personally knew the sister to whom I now refer. She was a humble saint but possessed of strong convictions. She was a member of the congregation I attended as a mere lad. It was our custom to do our baptizing in a clear pool of a small stream that flowed through a pasture owned by one of the elders. It was a lovely spot shaded by the overhanging boughs of a large tree, although it was inconvenient in the winter when icy winds swept across the fields and chilled the observers. But when the brethren decided to construct a baptistery under the pulpit there were objections raised at once. The aged sister was more adamant than any of the others. I can recall her saying, "There's just as much scripture for an organ on top of the pulpit as for one of them things under it. The day they put it in they can put me out. There's no pattern for it. The Lord was baptized in a river and I don't want to see anyone baptized in a box."
A number of years ago my father went to speak for a congregation on the Lord's Day. By enquiring in advance he learned that he would speak following the Lord's Supper. Imagine his surprise when the congregation stood following the Supper, and while singing a hymn, all marched out of the building. Thinking he had misunderstood the arrangement, father got his hat and book and started out, only to meet them all coming back in. They informed him that they followed the divine pattern for the Book teaches that "when they had sung a hymn, they went out." Father did not have the nerve to tell them that the record said, "they went out into the mount of Olives."
In 1836, Francis Whitefield Emmons, a respected contemporary of Alexander Campbell, took the position that Acts 2:42 contained a divinely ordained order of worship and that to be scriptural a congregation must observe the sequence therein set forth for its "items of worship." Both Campbell and Robert Richardson took issue with Emmons, denying that "this order should be considered as of divine order." Sixty years later the controversy was revived by publication of a tract on December 1, 1897, under the heading, "The Worship." So heated did the discussion become that one participant wrote, "That there has been haste on both sides of this unholy war is not a question. This is to be regretted and repented of. Unfair methods have been employed. Men, regardless of character have been justified; and men, without regard to character, convictions or conscience, have been condemned." He ended with a challenge to debate.
A short time later another furor was created when a well known brother reached the conclusion it was wrong to eat the Lord's Supper "at dinner time." He presented the case for partaking of the loaf and fruit of the vine after dark, and continued, "History shows it was kept at night in the first centuries and never in daylight." He said, "I think you will conclude with me that the evidence for the Supper at night is as clear as for the first day of the week. Those who contend for a restoration of New Testament Christianity will not ignore the argument for long without drifting to the common ground of indifference to the whole matter. It comes with poor grace to contend for loyalty to one example, and ignore the other. But Paul says, 'Ye have us for an ensample.' Phil. 3:17."
Recently I have had letters from two sisters in Texas who tell me that they are worshiping with those who had to leave "the daylight worshipers" in order to follow the apostolic pattern. They have pleaded with me to direct my energies toward fighting the spiritual decadence evidenced by partaking of the Lord's Supper in the daytime. I am asked to insist that everyone "come out from among them and be separate."
On a trip to the east I learned of two small groups of brethren in the mountain regions who have declared a state of non-fellowship with the congregations around them that do not practice "washing of feet" as a proof of loyalty to the commands of Jesus. It is their contention that nothing is plainer than the statement of the Lord, "For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you" (John 13:15).
When brethren began to become conscious of microbes and germs and the emphasis upon hygiene caused laws to be passed to abolish the common drinking cup at schools and on trains, there arose a tendency to adopt an "individual communion service." This launched a struggle which has not ceased to our day. Many places which had always used two or three glasses took up the cudgel against individual cups. As usual, both sides quoted those who had previously been recognized as heroes of the faith and claimed them as favorable to their positions. Debates have been held in many places with a constant emphasis on the divergent views, one side contending that we must have one container "according to the pattern," with the other just as vociferously affirming that the cup of which Jesus spoke is "the fruit of the vine."
In an endeavor to be even more literal there are two congregations of our acquaintance which will not use a glass or goblet at all but insist upon using a cup. In the community about them they are designated as the "One Cup With a Handle Church of Christ." They seem to appreciate rather than resent this as it serves as a means of distinction from those whom they regard as "liberals" or "glass digressives." It is not at all uncommon for adherents of the several groups to call each other "one-cuppers" or "cups churches." It is a strange, and almost ludicrous commentary on our condition to read in some reports of "cups preachers."
In several areas small groups have reached the conclusion that "the pattern" calls for fermented wine in the Lord's Supper. They have severed themselves from what they term "the grape juice churches" and claim no "fellowship" with them. Others have divided over a method of breaking the bread, with certain ones insisting that the one who presides at the table must first break a bit from the loaf and eat, then pass it to the other communicants and allow each to break off a portion in turn.
A special field of literature including magazine articles, tracts, booklets, and printed debates, has grown up around what is called "the Sunday School question." The right to teach in classes has been challenged and discussed with intensity, and even with resultant partisan bitterness in many places. The Sunday school has been labeled, "a missionary society for the children which differs no whit from the organized missionary organizations for the grown ups." Those who have classes have been dared to find a precedent for their practice in "the pattern."
In recent years a question has been raised about the scripturality of congregations contributing their funds to a congregational treasury remote from them for the purpose of propagandizing by national television and radio programs. The problem of institutionalism has reared its head again as it often has through the years, but this time in relation to charitable organizations. The non-instrument segment of the disciple brotherhood has been fractured into three fragments--called "liberals," "antis," and "middle-of-the-roaders." In these areas the feeling has been so deep that divisions have occurred and those who met in the same building a few years ago have set up rival encampments from which to assail each other.
What shall I more say? Time would fail me to tell of all the other ideas which have splintered and shivered the heirs of the restoration movement through the years. The things of which I have written are but a small minority of those which have been documented as having caused schisms among the brethren. I think that it is time that we should study objectively the underlying causes and basic reasons why our brethren divide periodically. Why should a movement which began as "a project to unite the Christians in all sects" end up as the most bitter and strife-torn in our generation? Is it possible for a people who have spent their time in unmitigated attacks upon others to turn the searchlight upon themselves and explore the philosophy which has wrecked their influence in many communities? Certainly it is dangerous for one who attempts it, for those who have been conditioned to regard themselves as "the elect of God" and to treat all others as "heathens and publicans" will bitterly resent any implication that they are as guilty as those whom they have accused.
I can no longer be content to continue in a factional program and insulate my heart from some of the real elemental problems which make us behave as we do. I regard those things over which we have divided, and even the divisions themselves, as mere symptoms of a deep underlying fallacy in our thinking. It has betrayed us into bitter strife in the past and will lead us into such civil wars in the future as will decimate us and render invalid any plea that we make to the religious world at large. In short, it will make of us a bitter and bigoted sect with "our hand against every man and every man's hand against us."
Unfortunately, certain concepts become entrenched in the thinking of a people and are eventually sanctified by the passing of time. To attack the traditions of a group is regarded as equivalent to an attack upon the word of God. We cannot deny that the interpretation of scripture is substituted for the scripture and becomes the real criterion. We have seen this demonstrated too often in the sectarian creeds of those about us. "Our way of looking at it" is equated with God's message and one must be bold indeed to fling down the gauntlet in the face of ingrained position and practice.
Men are not too concerned with critical investigation provided that it is not radical. So long as it consists of lopping off twigs and snipping away at small undergrowth, they will debate and skirmish without being particularly perturbed. But the word "radical" is from a term meaning "root." That is why we call a certain root vegetable a "radish." Jesus was a radical. He got to the very root of life and sin and so he was crucified. Most real radicals must be removed because men cannot stand what they reveal. You "dig up things" when you get to the root of them. Few people want to be really disturbed. In the final analysis, it has been the radicals who have always been responsible for our progress.
I know why I am writing this way. It is because I realize that I will be branded an extremist. In our parlance an extremist is always one who opposes any position we hold. One who opposes instrumental music is regarded as an extremist by one who employs it; one who opposes classes is an extremist to the one who has them; one who opposes individual cups is an extremist to the one who uses them. We are all extremists as viewed by someone. It does not hurt me to be labeled an extremist for this is a term of universal application. I have learned that the word is never applied to oneself. It is always reserved for application to others. It is obvious, then, that one is not an extremist because of where he stands in his views, but because of where others stand as they view him.
There is a difference between an extremist and a radical. The former has to do with the horizontal, the latter with the vertical. One is an extremist because he stands to the right or left of us but a radical may cut the ground right out from under us. If we are to the right or left of Jesus, one may be to the right or left of us and be closer to Jesus than we are. Or he may be farther from Jesus. The whole point I am making is that there may be nothing seriously wrong with being called an extremist or radical. There may be something seriously right about the one so designated. I will have one thing in my favor in this current investigation because I will not be examining the position of one faction as opposed to another. Instead, I will be probing the question of what has created all of our factions.
I am sure that opinion will be divided as to the worth of what we write. There will be some in every faction who will hail what we say as true, others in every faction will regard it as the greatest threat of our day, while the majority will continue in complacency and unconcern. They are not moved by what Jesus said so there is little hope they will become aroused by what I say. I am personally convinced that a lot of us would be perfectly content to pursue our factious course and engage in occasional tilts and tussles with brethren provided no one ever really reflected against "The Church of Christ" as such.
We can permit a contest over colleges or a contention over classes and the din of battle dies away, but when someone challenges our standing as a people, or implies that we may be sectarian, that is going too far. We do not mind the members of the family having a tug of war provided no one reflects on the family honor. Some of the things with which I shall deal may get beneath the surface. Perhaps it is time that we rise above banalities and superficial examination. We are where our thinking has brought us and it has brought us division and schism. This is where God does not want us to be. I suggest it is about time to change our thinking. In order to proceed with as little misunderstanding as possible let me make some points at this juncture.
1. I have a very deep reverence for all of the brethren in every faction growing out of the restoration movement. I do not think that those who disagree with me are dishonest. I do not regard as sectarians those who have things I cannot endorse, nor do I regard as hobbyists those who cannot, in good conscience, endorse things I have. They are all my brethren for whom Christ died. I do not look with disdain upon some nor with obsequiousness upon others. Those who choose not to have classes or cups and those who choose to have colleges and instrumental music are alike my brethren. They are accountable unto God and not unto me. There is no compunction about moving among any of them because I love them all--not because of what they have or do not have, but because they are children of my Father.
2. All of us are victims of a heritage of division which has given us certain traditional backgrounds of a partisan nature. I am aware that there are those in orthodox "Churches of Christ" who deny that there is any division. They constitute the elect of God and all others are separated from them. They have "arrived" while everyone else has "departed." Of all our various groups, these deserve the greatest pity and compassion. It is the person who is sick and does not know it; the one who is seriously ill while he thinks he is well, who deserves our commiseration. In many places the faction which puts on the biggest front has the least behind it and arrogant exclusiveness is merely a cloak for an empty spiritual shell. No faction is "the faithful church," no segment or splinter constitutes "the loyal body."
3. One of us is not divided from the other. We are separated from one another. No group is completely guilty nor wholly guiltless. Those who project all of the guilt to others have the least to commend them in the sight of God and their fellows. We are divided because of a philosophy which confuses division with fidelity to God. Each party feels that the thing it elevates as a test of fellowship is vital and essential to relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. Brotherhood is thus conditioned upon an attitude toward cups, classes, colleges, or other things. It is not knowing Christ but "the right stand" on these issues upon which one must rise or fall with the party.
4. No faction among us can be wholly discounted. The smallest group may have something of value to contribute to others. Each has emphasized a different area of thought and has specialized in a certain field. Not all that any faction does is completely wrong. The factional spirit is a sin but that which it seeks to exploit may be right. None of us should become so arrogant or spiritually sophisticated that we cannot listen attentively to any of our brethren. "Setting at nought a brother" is a dangerous procedure.
5. I think we may concede that all of our divisions have resulted from a proper desire. All of the brethren have sought to do what they earnestly believed would meet God's approval and avoid His chastisement. Those who oppose individual cups believe they are contrary to the pattern; those who oppose classes believe they are contrary to the pattern. The same thing can be said of those who oppose colleges, institutional homes, societies and instrumental music. The opposition does not stem from a desire to be reckoned cranky or cantankerous but from a fear of violating a divinely ordained pattern. All who practice or endorse things believe they are justified by a proper interpretation of the pattern; all who oppose them believe just as firmly that they are forbidden by the pattern.
It is evident that we have disagreed so violently over the pattern that we have fragmented ourselves into warring tribes and clashing clans. Yet the word of God reads identically the same to everyone of us and all are equal in their anxiety to understand and obey it. It is not enough for one party to say that all that is necessary is to take the word of God for what it says. That is precisely what each party feels it is doing now. The party that makes such a statement simply implies that everyone should take the word of God for what that particular party thinks it means by what it says. Each party feels that it has an infallible interpretation and those who do not concur with the party exegesis do not understand the Bible at all. They misunderstand it. This is a simple and naive approach. It merely begs the question, it does not solve the problem.
For example, take the question about the container for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper. So long as one ardently believes that the cup is the pattern and another believes that the "fruit of the vine" is the cup about which Jesus speaks, there will be contention. So long as this is esteemed vital to walking in the Spirit there will be division. Which is in accordance with the pattern--one container, multiple cups, or both? Would it shock you too greatly if I came directly to the point and suggested that perhaps God gave us no pattern at all in the commonly accepted usage of the term by the various factions calling themselves "The Church of Christ."
If Jesus ordained a Supper instead of a pattern, one might partake of it in memory of Him without regard to minute details, and there could well be several different ways of handling the details by consecrated disciples who could "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." To bind a method as the pattern when no pattern was intended would be fallacious, and might become sinful. We are not divided over the Lord's Supper, but over "the pattern." We are not divided over teaching the Bible, but over the pattern. We are not divided over caring for the needy but over the pattern. In every instance the basis of division is "the pattern."
Regardless of how we view the various items which divide us, all of us without exception will acknowledge that division among brethren is a sin of grave consequence. All admit that the purpose of God's revelation was to unite us and to create harmony where division previously existed. It is evident that any use of God's word for the purpose of creating or justifying division among humble and earnest saints is an abuse and misuse. Nothing has been more productive of dissension among us than the concept that God intended to provide for us a specific pattern complete in minute detail and that this pattern constitutes an inviolable law for His children in all ages, climes, and conditions. It would seem that the attempt to establish the new covenant scriptures as a legalistic blueprint or templet with every insignificant and incidental matter spelled out has resulted in an overthrow of God's purpose.
To merely suggest that the new covenant scriptures may not have been intended for such a positive pattern will bring down upon the head of the one doing so a storm of acrimony and resentment. He will be denounced, proscribed and anathematized. The fear of being harried and harassed through brotherhood journals acts as a constant deterrent to the exploration of new areas of thought. In spite of this, I am urging that the whole "pattern concept" which makes of the apostolic letters mere legalistic documents be examined calmly and dispassionately. This is not an adoption of liberalistic philosophy. It represents no renunciation of the faith upon my part. It is merely a suggestion, made in all humility, that, in the light of present knowledge and available information, we measure up to our responsibility in our generation by examining the ground for our spiritual procedure.
It is an admitted fact that every faction among us rejects as being a part of the pattern that which every other faction accepts as an essential part of it. The brethren who use individual cups reject the idea that there is a specific pattern for one container; those who employ classes reject the idea that there is a specific pattern for teaching methods. The same holds true for those who set up chartered institutions to care for the needy, as well as for those who employ instrumental music. Every detail which means so much to some is lightly esteemed by others in the brotherhood of saints so that a compilation of composite views would show that if these views were universally adopted as a criterion there would be no detailed pattern at all. Yet to suggest this will bring indignant response from every segment. This indicates that the pattern in each instance is the partisan interpretation and this is equated with the will of God. This is creedalism in its worst form!
It is obvious that the person who does not believe there is a technical specification for each requirement of God can worship with his brethren regardless of how they carry out the requirement, so long as it is not in violation of good order and decorum. The reverse is not true. One who has no qualms about instrumental music can enjoy a service where the praise is rendered a capella. The same is true of one who believes it is proper to have classes and individual cups. The man who has no scruples about the state of the fruit of the vine can drink in fellowship with his brethren wherever he may be, whether they use fermented or unfermented fruit of the vine. If it be true that God did not design to give us an exclusive pattern, those who interpret the sacred writings as such, do themselves and other brethren an injustice. Despite their good intentions and zeal they run counter to God's purpose by binding laws in areas where he intended for us to be free. Let me be candid enough to say at this point that I believe every faction among us is guilty of this very thing in its relation to other factions. I will go one step further and say that it is my conviction that "The Church of Christ" has done the same thing in relation to other segments of our religious world. While this will be hailed as treason we can never recapture a real sense of destiny until we face up to the stark truth about ourselves.
We are prone to look with disdain and condescension upon the scruples of others. Those who contend for them are agitators and busybodies. When we do the same thing we are "contending for the faith." Recently a congregation in Iowa engaged in a prolonged and somewhat heated business meeting engendered by a preacher who protested against "taking up the collection" before partaking of the Lord's Supper. The congregation had inherited a tradition stemming from the "order of worship" controversy in which "the fellowship" in Acts 2:42 was regarded as the contribution, and thus was attended to before the breaking of the bread. The preacher referred to insisted that they were violating the pattern because Paul gave instruction for observing the Supper in chapter 11 of First Corinthians, whereas he did not give orders for the collection until chapter 16. I mentioned this to a brother of my acquaintance who laughed in high glee at such naivete. The very next Lord's Day he was in high dudgeon because the brother who presided began the service with meditation and prayer rather than with a song. It all depends upon "whose ox is gored."
I would like to believe that all of my brethren are sufficiently mature to face up to some questions which will help us to scrutinize our philosophy and practice openly and fearlessly. I suspect that it is too much to count upon this but I do believe that we live in an era when a sufficient number are beginning to think independently that we can suggest some matters for concern and study. I have no desire to arouse additional bitterness nor to increase areas of tension. I would like to relieve these if possible. However, I cannot make myself think that we better ourselves in the ultimate by ignoring truth as we go along. For that reason I crave your kind indulgence while I propose a series of questions which may serve as guide lines for exploration in subsequent articles. A careful study of these will enable you to properly evaluate what we shall say in the immediate future.
1. In the fulfillment of any responsibility there are things essential and others which are purely incidental or accidental. The former are inherent and grow out of the nature of that which is to be accomplished; the latter are adherent and provide a setting in which, or a means by which, the thing may be furthered. This is a principle so universally recognized that any attempt to elucidate it would be superfluous. Was this true of the things which Jesus performed and of the principles he enunciated? If so, how can we determine that which is essential and that which is incidental? That this demands the exercise of judgment and requires an application of the faculty of discretion and the powers of discrimination must certainly be plain to all. Whose judgment must prevail and who is to be the final arbiter unto whom all must submit?
2. Every teacher, in spite of his grasp of truth, lives among a people who are products of their own environment. Unless he becomes a hermit and retires to solitary exclusion, he must face up to practical problems growing out of the circumstances of his day. His teaching is affected by, and must directly affect, the culture in which he lives and labors. I doubt not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and a universal Savior, but he was instructing a provincial and parochial people in a land which constituted an occupied territory. Is it possible that some of his statements were directly relating to conditions then obtaining and have relevance only under such conditions? I am fully aware of the fact that principles may be enunciated which are applicable under all circumstances and I am certain beyond question that our Lord gave such ecumenical truths.
But is it possible that Jesus, while in the flesh, recognized and followed the customs of his day and time, without intention to bind these upon all men in all ages, or without expecting conformity in these respects? If so, what is universal and exhaustive and what was temporary and localized? What will be our standard for differentiation and whose mind will apply the measure? Admittedly this is no problem to those in an authoritarian and monolithic structure. My friends who are Roman Catholics are not at all disturbed by the problem but neither are they free men in Christ. Who is to determine such things for free men and if they surrender the right for someone else to do so, are they still free?
3. In view of the fact that the apostolic epistles were written to meet situations arising in congregations of their day and would probably not have been written at all if such conditions had not obtained, to what extent did these epistles urge conformity to customs and modes which are no longer acknowledged and recognized? I am sure that everyone of our readers would regard some of what is written as being within such a category and while there would no doubt be disagreement as to what should be included and what should be excluded it would be admitted by all that certain portions of the apostolic coverage would have to be relegated to this sphere. Who is to rule as to what matter was purely contemporary and what was to continue? By what standard can we reject the command to "greet one another with a holy kiss" or substitute for it a different and more modern form of salutation? On what ground can we dispense with the Agape (love feast) which was practiced by the primitive saints with regularity?
4. The apostle Paul specifically wrote of the new covenant that it was "not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). When we regard the new covenant scriptures as a pattern in the absolute, do we not convert them into a written code? Have we not regarded these scriptures as a legalistic basis of justification? I am not questioning the inspiration or authority of the sacred scriptures. I believe in both. I believe the apostolic writings have the authority of God behind them, but if we have used them as God intended, why are we divided contrary to the word of God? Have we changed the scriptures into something they were never intended to be? Could Paul become all things to all men, that he might by all means save some, if he was operating under an inflexible set of rules as unalterable as the law of the Medes and Persians?
To state it in slightly different fashion--is every word spoken by authority of equal importance? Are there "weightier matters of the law" if so, what makes them weigh heavier? Granted that there are some absolutes in God's revelation, does it follow that everything is in that domain? What is central to the Christian way and what is on the fringe or border? What things must be understood to be a Christian and what things may be misunderstood without severing or impairing the relationship? Are the latter the same with every individual?
In the physical realm some members of the body are essential to being and some to wellbeing. God created the little finger as well as the head, but if you cut off the latter you will die. This is not true of cutting off a finger. Can the same distinction be made with reference to the body of revealed truth? Surely all that God has said is valuable but is all of equal value in our Christian life? Is it possible to fight over certain things which are not worth the effort? Can we exalt some things to a position of prominence they do not deserve? One would not willingly dispense with anything that has been written any more than he would cheerfully cut off his finger, but if there is a serious question about interpretation should not the salvation of the other man be given prior consideration? Should we not incline to that interpretation which would achieve and maintain unity seeing that this was one of the prime purposes for writing the new covenant scriptures?
There may be more than one method of doing the right thing. In a simple operation such as gaining entrance to a box tied with a string, one man may labor patiently to untie the knot, another will cut the string with a knife, while a third will slip it around the edge or corner of the box. That which is effective for one may be ineffective for the other, but there is nothing wrong about either way. In many instances it appears that God has not specified the means of accomplishing an objective. He has left it to us to decide the manner best adapted to our individual ability and temperament. We are not free to set up such a method as an absolute and demand that all others work on this basis or be lost, nor should others legislate for us where God has not done so.
It is difficult for most of us to realize that we are not under a legalistic code. The record declares, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). The contrast is not between two laws. It does not say that the law came by Moses and another law came by Jesus Christ. The law is contrasted with grace and truth. Perhaps the contrast is nowhere else seen as clearly as in Hebrews 10:28, 29, "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" On one hand you have as the greatest crime the violation of law; on the other hand is the spurning of the Son, profaning the blood and outraging the Spirit of grace.
It is characteristic of Pharisaism to "bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders" (Matt. 23:4). This is the spirit of partisan righteousness. In the primitive church "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.'" Peter asked them a pertinent question, "Why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Was he talking about the written code with its meticulous observances of rituals and forms? Is it not significant that the apostles, elders and whole church at Jerusalem, wrote to those who were being subjected to legalism, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28). The necessary things did not include circumcision or legalism. How many things are really necessary according to the Holy Spirit and the apostles? How many things are simply laid as burdens upon men to "hold them in line?"
The Roman Catholic hierarchy makes no apology for binding certain things simply as authoritative and disciplinary measures. They do not profess to find scriptural authority for commanding to abstain from meats on Friday. This is a law of the church and not of God. It is accompanied by threats which are effective only because of the hold that the church has over its communicants. Are there any forms or requirements in traditional "Church of Christ" practice designed for the same purpose? It is one thing to perform an act voluntarily, willingly and spontaneously, and doing the same thing under threat of reprisal and to avoid public castigation.
I think it would not be quite honest with our readers if I did not tell you that it is my conviction that the system which constitutes Church-of-Christ-ism is the result of a degeneration of noble restoration principles into a narrow and sectarian framework. For this reason the haughty and arrogant back-patting done by some of the larger factions does not affect me for this is a clear demonstration of the truth of my claims. The self-righteous criticism of the smaller groups by these larger ones, and their utter denial that there are Christians outside the restoration movement background--these do not betoken that the spokesmen for "the loyal church" have a better vision of truth. It only means they are in a worse state of blindness as to their own condition.
Those who think they have arrived and are therefore in a favored position from whence they can summon all others to come and take their stand, have a great deal yet to learn. It will help them to begin their spiritual education if they will realize that "the pattern" which they insist on imposing upon all others may be a compilation of explanations and interpretations handed down by men whom they would not allow to speak in their pulpits nor call upon to lead in prayer. We still garnish the tombs of prophets whom we would stone if they lived among us. The pattern in most cases is the partisan interpretation, and just as each faction among us has built up its own exclusive body of beliefs in a mistaken view that its foundation is divine, so "The Church of Christ" in its relation to other sincere seekers after truth may have done the same.
It is this kind of writing which will be called treason. I do not want to unduly upset my brethren nor to cause them concern. I wish that I knew of a more diplomatic approach. I would gladly spare all of those whom I love from exposure to any apparent crudity in expression. But the truth must be known and "I am weary from holding in." Regardless of personal attacks which I may incur I cannot live with my own conscience if I do not decry the spirit of sectarian exclusiveness which is rampant in many areas of the disciple brotherhood.
Let me mention again that inter-factional squabbling and criticism will be condoned. So long as one equates the elect of God as those within the confines of the non-instrumental "Church of Christ" and denies that all outside of its bounds are children of the Father, he can be tolerated. But what we are doing is challenging Church-of-Christ-ism as a modern system. This challenge cuts across all lines and falls with equal force upon all segments of the disciple brotherhood, instrumental and non-instrumental alike. In short, we are doing the same thing with all of the factions growing out of the restoration movement that Alexander Campbell did to all of the Protestant sects growing out of the Reformation movement, and we are doing it for the same reason.
We believe that in a century and a half we have, as a people, compiled a body of interpretations which we have made into an unwritten creed. We believe that variations and modifications of this have produced our divergent factions. The composite views create an affinity which enables us to regard all of these factions as constituting "The Church of Christ" and this body of believers regards all other believers exactly as each faction within it regards all the other factions within it, as respects fellowship. We have concocted a basis of fellowship which we project into the sacred scriptures and refer to as "the pattern." In each instance the pattern is actually the party position and honest men who cannot in good conscience subscribe to it in every minute detail are labeled as heretics and apostates.
While our natural inclinations would deter us from writing thus, our love for the truth prompts us to pursue the crusade for a brighter day based upon better understanding of the word of God and the motivation of all who seek to do His will. We are expendable. What happens to us personally is of little consequence. We are content to await the verdict of time and the final judgment of the Prince of peace. We submit ourselves wholly and completely into His care and surrender unreservedly to His will and purpose. It is in that spirit we write with love for all, including those who disagree. None of our brethren need accept what we write to be loved and revered as children of the Father. We can only hope and trust that what we write will be sufficiently provocative to stimulate a greater study that we might come to really know Him who is the source of all Reality.
If God wills I shall, in our following issues, examine some of the questions raised in this one. It will be my intention to give special attention to the statement, "See that ye do all things according to the pattern showed you in the mount." I shall expect to demonstrate that this is one of the most abused passages of the sacred writ, that men have ignored its contextual setting and purpose, and have used it to effect the very opposite of what God intended. I shall deal with the psychological problem of why men convert grace into law and with the equally important question of how we can have freedom without having anarchy. I can promise you that the coming months will provide the most challenging approach to the Christian concept in our generation. It is our hope that you may continue to read and think with us.