Editor's Note. The following recorded interview may be of some interest to our readers. It represents my reply to questions proposed relative to my views on current topics. It was recorded and has been transcribed from the recordings. There have been occasional deletions and alterations made in order to clarify my position. I trust that you will give it a careful reading.
1. I have noticed the repeated usage of the term "restoration" in your writings. What do you mean by this expression?
By the term "restoration" I mean the full and complete return to the ancient order as established by our Lord through the holy apostles; that is the reinstatement upon this earth of the community of saints as originally planted in conformity with the purpose of heaven.
2. Does this mean that you consider that no existing religious organization has yet achieved this goal?
Exactly! We have not yet arrived at the place where any congregation or group of congregations can assert that they represent the primitive order in its fulness. There remains yet much land to be conquered.
3. Why is a restoration necessary in the first place?
The ancient order began to be corrupted even during the days of the apostles. Paul declared while he was yet alive that "the mystery of iniquity" was already working. The plan of God was obscured, the sun was eclipsed, and the congregation forced to flee "into the wilderness." The actual bondage in spiritual Babylon lasted for 12 years, before the first rays of light began once more to penetrate the darkness. We are not completely free from the influence of Babylon to this very day.
4. Is this attempt at restoration a new thing in the earth?
Not at all. It began in England with such men as John Wycliffe in the fifteenth century, and was carried forward by Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. While these and their contemporaries were actually reformers of the existing order, they laid the groundwork for such men as Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Barton W. Stone, et. al., who actually sought to go back beyond the Roman and Protestant schisms, and restore the original order as ordained by God. Our efforts are enriched by their discoveries of the last century.
5. Has progress in restoration been as rapid in the last fifty years as before?
Not at all! Those who were the spiritual descendants of the men mentioned made the mistake of thinking that they had taken them all the way back to the original, and thus have rested on their oars. They have spent much of the last half century trying to defend what they already have and wrangling with each other over what it is. As a result they have ceased to be a movement and have become a monument. A movement is ever changing. A monument stays where it is. It is visited by many to celebrate the accomplishment of dead heroes instead of living giants.
6. What has been the end of all previous reformation and restoration attempts?
Every such attempt has invariably ended by producing another sect, generally more narrow, intolerant and uncharitable than those which have preceded it. As men concentrate on what they have discovered, they build a wall around it to protect it. All sectism is built upon fear--a fear of losing what has been gained. It is a strange phenomenon that when one learns something and leaves where he is to embrace it, it is being faithful to the Word, but when another learns something he has not discovered, and goes on to accept it, he is departing from the faith.
7. Do you see any tendencies to indicate that the movement for restoration which was launched a century ago may suffer the same fate?
Indeed, the most casual observer can detect such portents upon every side. The aim of Campbell and his fellows was to unite all true believers in Christ in one body. The descendants are themselves divided into some twenty-five factions, each one of which proclaims it is the only faithful body on earth today, and designates all the others as sects. The original movement was vibrant and living. It penetrated all kinds of defences thrown up by various individuals. But it was fair and open. Campbell allowed anyone to write for the Millennial Harbinger. He encouraged a full exchange of views regardless of how much they differed from his own.
The closed-door policy of many of our papers today effectively put a halt to the exchange of new ideas. They became a clearing-house for the traditions of yesterday. Nothing would upset one of their editors like a new thought expressed. The result is that we have become parrots instead of "birds of passage." We are setting hens and not soaring eagles.
8. What real contributions to restoration were made by the Campbells?
They contributed much by their discovery that the blessings of God were contingent upon His ordinances. Thus they recaptured from error the place, nature, purpose and design of baptism, as well as the relationship of the Lord's Supper to the community of the saints. They also began a work of rescue for some of the terms used by the Holy Spirit which had been much abused in the sectarian jargon of the day. Indeed, in his Synopsis of Reformation Campbell gives this first place, as well he might. We can never be too grateful to these pioneers who blazed the trail across the untrammeled wilderness of sectism. They did a noble job and made all of us their debtors.
9. Do you have any well defined ideas as to what realms need further examination to effectuate the restoration?
Yes, I do. Of course, I hold that every generation of men is obligated to make a complete and thorough investigation of God's entire system of revelation, so that the faith of each generation will not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. It is too easy to become traditionalists, and most people become such for two reasons--they are by nature hero worshipers and they are mentally lazy. I grew up with a Bible in one hand and a sermon outline book in the other. It was only when I divested myself of the latter that I became free in Christ Jesus. What a difference it made.
As a stimulation to my personal study I have listed ten categories in which I think we are yet influenced greatly by the sectarian spirit, and where considerable research will be required before we approach the walls of Jerusalem. I doubt that many will be delivered from their mistaken views along these lines. There is too much verbal assault, and too much persecution to be expected. They are guarded by too many important men who either cannot understand what is being said or prefer evil to truth.
10. It would probably take too long to enumerate all ten of these, but I wonder if you might mention a few of them which you consider to be of greater importance.
They are all important, for all have to do with our approach to God, and nothing is unimportant in that area. But I will mention a few. (1) A candid study of the vocabulary of the Holy Spirit. We need to recapture the original distinctions between such terms as gospel and doctrine, preaching and teaching. The gospel is good news. It is news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. It is not a compendium of laws, a moral code, or a volume of ethics. Jesus Christ is the gospel and the gospel is Jesus Christ. The gospel was fully proclaimed on Pentecost and not one word was ever added to the message which Peter there delivered. The gospel is for the world and not for the church. It is an evangel and you do not evangelize the saved.
We need to batter down unscriptural distinctions in such terms as minister and communion. Everything the saints do together is part of their communion. The Lord's Supper is just a part of it. We commune when we sing and pray together. We need to study diligently such words as fellowship and heresy, which are bandied about by individuals with "an axe to grind." I am doing extensive research on these last two now and hope to publish something relating to them soon.
(2) The means of induction into Christ. We have reduced this to a sort of five step, kitchen stepladder method, by which men have become convinced that they can pull themselves up into God's grace and place Him under obligation to save them. We have the whole thing worked out in a simple and easy method, a sort of five-finger exercise, which has been handed down to us and is sacred because of its longevity.
The idea of a personal covenant with the Lord, based upon conviction, conversion and consecration is almost foreign to our thinking. The concept of a covenant with God is wholly unknown to thousands among us. The congregations are filled with many who were converted to water baptism but were never converted to the Lord Jesus Christ. They have confused the physician with his prescription, the captain with his orders, and the sower with his seed. Immersion in water is essential. But we should be immersed not because we believe in baptism but because we believe in Jesus. We have but one Savior. It is not a rite, ritual or ordinance, but entrance into a divine person.
(3). The subject of worship and what constitutes it. There is a general and widespread ignorance on the subject at present and the idea of "five items of worship" is no more in the Bible than the expression itself. Of all the Greek words translated "worship" not one is ever applied to anything we do when we assemble together on the first day of the week. The term "act of worship" is not even found in the sacred scriptures. Whatever I do in adoration of God is an act of worship, whether washing dishes or mowing the lawn. "Whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving God the Father the glory through him."
(4). The subject of the official name of the ecclesia of God. In this matter we are following the lead of the world of sectism about us, without due regard to God's revelation. We are defending our traditional pattern simply because we have always done it that way. These are a few of the ten areas of scriptural thought on which I feel we must make some adjustment if we restore the ancient order. It will be a difficult task for us. Many will not go along, preferring to stay as they have always been without disturbing the status quo. They confuse walking in the old paths with wallowing in the old ruts. Such people will become part of the problem and not part of the answer.
11. What do you consider the greatest hindrances to resumption of the restoration movement?
There are a number of hindrances. One is prejudice. Someone has said, "Reasoning against a prejudice is like fighting against a shadow; it exhausts the reasoner, without visibly affecting the prejudice." We are generally opposed to anything which cuts across our thinking, and we condemn it without investigation. It seems ridiculous that anything could possibly be right if we have not known it.
Then there is traditionalism. Most of us, like the Chinese are ancestor worshipers. We want to do things like they do them "down home" although they may he wrong "down home." I suspect pride is our worst foe. Seneca said, "Tis not the belly's hunger which costs so much, but its pride." And it has been very costly to us. We have berated and ridiculed other religionists so long, it goes against the grain to have to admit that we have been wrong on some things.
One of the greatest hindrances is the divisive state of those who claim to be "The Church of Christ." In some localities there are as many as five congregations, all claiming to be the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic Church of God, not one of which will even be civil to the other, many of the members living in such mortal fear of "the powers that be" they will not even speak to each other on the street. It is difficult for the remainder of the religious world to see how a family can pull the drawstring of unity with one hand while slashing at each other with a meat cleaver in the other hand.
12. Do you think what is generally referred to as "The Church of Christ" today is co-extensive with the scriptural expression "the body of Christ"?
Of course, I might ask which "Church of Christ"? But I think I know what you mean. The congregation of God spoken of in the new covenant scriptures is identical with the one body mentioned in the same scriptures. It is composed of all the children of God. Not one saved person on earth is outside of it. God adds to it every person who surrenders to the sovereignty of His Son and enters into covenant relationship with Him on the basis of the terms laid down by heaven. Every person on this earth, motivated by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, who has turned away from sin, and submitted to immersion of his body in water on the basis of that belief, is a member of God's family. He is my brother. I am not sure that when we use the expression "The Church of Christ" that we use it in that sense. It is possible that we use it as a designation for a small and exclusive segment of believers who agree with our position on various points of teaching. Thus, we would imply that thousands of immersed believers in the Christ were not added to the family of God. This is, of course, a sectarian usage of the term.
13. Do you believe that some of God's children may be in sectarian bodies?
There are many people who belong to sects and yet are not sectarian. When fleshly Israel started out of Babylon they did not all leave at once. A contingent went out under the leadership of Zerubbabel, later another went out with Ezra, and still later another under Nehemiah. Those who were in Babylon until the last were as much God's children as those who had already arrived in Jerusalem. They were just in Babylon for a longer period. Thus it is with spiritual Israel in "Mystery, Babylon the Great." They may not all go out of Babylon at once, but as they become aware of their state, learn that they are in a foreign place, and have the glory of the city of Jerusalem pictured to them, they are led to evacuate the city of exile and start the trek toward Beulah land.
14. Does this mean that it is possible to be saved in sectarianism?
Let us put it this way! No sectarian can be saved, regardless of where he is. Sectarianism is a personal attitude toward truth. It is the "party spirit" and is condemned just as adultery, fornication, murder, lying, theft and drunkenness. When a man becomes convinced that the party spirit is sinful, he ought to leave it, just as he abandons adultery or lying when he sees the guilt attached to them. You might as well ask if one can be saved if he continues in adultery as to ask if he can be saved while he continues in sectism. If one of God's children sees that he is in a party which separates, segregates and aggravates the remainder of God's children purely out of partisanship, he ought to get out of it and do so at once. Otherwise he will be lost because of his factious practice.
15. Would this not imply that some might have to get out of "The Church of Christ" in some places?
Certainly. It might be necessary to leave "The Church of Christ" in order to remain in the church of Christ. If one is a member of a group that is sectarian in its attitude and practices, he would either have to reform them in harmony with God's revelation, or leave them regardless of what name they wear. But he must do this in love. If he hates those whom he leaves, he will prove to be as sectarian as they. "Passions, intrigues, dissensions and factions" are called works of the flesh and it is said "that those who act this way will not inherit the kingdom of God."
16. Do you not personally oppose theological seminaries and the one-man minister system as well as other things which some baptized believers endorse, and if so, does this not make you sectarian according to your definition?
Yes, I oppose both of the things which you mention. I oppose the first because I believe it sets up a plurality of bodies where God has set up only one; and I oppose the second because it sets up one minister where the Lord has set up many. But I am not creating an "anti-college party" or an anti-ministerial party." I have convictions, very deep ones, upon both of these matters. I recognize that I stand almost alone. I do not deny that those who differ with me on these things are my brethren. I go among them, work with them for the glory of God, talk with them, and truly love them. There are many who hate me, speak evil of me and misrepresent my position. They cannot understand how it is possible for someone with my convictions to labor with them. But I feel no rancor towards them. I am too busy working for the kingdom to indulge in hate. My brethren might be right!
17. Are there not some who believe you are allied with a sect because you use more than one container for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper and worship with congregations which have classes for Bible Study?
This is true and we should not forget that there is not a single group on earth that is not branded as a sect by some other group. We should rejoice that we shall be judged by the Lord rather than by men, for then no person could be saved. Many earnest, conscientious persons believe that for the Lord's Supper to be acceptable, the fruit of the vine must be dispensed in one container. While I do not have that view, and think it is unduly and unnecessarily exclusive I do not disfellowship those who hold it. I am not a leader of a "multiple cups party." Those who hold to the one container are my brethren, and I love them. We have the same spiritual father and mother. I think it is sinful to call them "one cuppers" and to divide the family of God into "cups groups" and "one-cup groups."
Such language is the terminology of narrow sectism and reflects the party spirit. I am trying to purge myself of it, although it is difficult to do so, because we have always used it as a reflection on those who differ from us. But the same God who is over us all is rich unto all them that call upon Him. A realization that these are really my brethren, and the cultivation of sincere love for them, which rises above partisanship, helps me to eliminate hurtful and hateful phraseology. I trust that some day many of us will actually be able to work together as one in Christ, but I know that I cannot promote unity while defending partisanship.
18. How do you regard the Mission Messenger as relates to the thing you are striving to achieve?
I am firmly resolved that it will not become an "official mouthpiece" for any sect, clique, party, or faction. The paper is my own individual enterprise. It is my means of communicating my views to my brethren and friends throughout the world. It is just a loudspeaker tuned in on a world frequency. Nell helps me to mail it out and is my constant stay and strength. God bless her! I know that many papers are recognized as official organs of various factions. The editors can often make or break a man. I feel sorry for brethren who are subservient to such a party spirit for they are not free men in Christ Jesus. Their lives are miserable.
I have asked several brethren to share regularly in this medium of expression and have invited all to do so to the extent of limited space. But Mission Messenger is purely a personal, individual undertaking, and nothing more! Occasionally pressures are applied upon me to eliminate someone from writing with whom some of his brethren disagree. There are many who are anxious to use such a medium to get their views and opinions before the people, but they want to deny other brethren the same privilege and they become disgruntled if I publish something with which they are out of harmony. But so long as I publish this paper it will be a free journal and not the organ of a sect or faction. I thank God that he delivered me not only from the faction with which I was once associated, but from the factional spirit. That spirit exists before the faction and the faction grows out of it.
19. Do all of the regular contributors agree fully with your views?
I have never asked them, but I am almost sure they do not. I am sure that I do not agree with any of them upon every matter. It is not necessary that they agree with me upon everything to get their material printed. I do not agree with everything they write for the paper, nor demand that they agree with everything I write. But I do defend their right and freedom to think, speak and act for themselves. If I disagree with something they write, and I think it is important enough, I'll attach a dissenting note; they also have a right to reply to anything I say, and so do any of our readers.
Emile Gavreau said about the public press: "Careers, reputations, friendships, life-long labors; the sanctity of homes; confidences in business; errors long atoned for; feuds long buried; the guarded secrets of the heart; innocent pleasures, loyalties--all the things that hitherto were inspected and honored in the society of men, this monster (the press) violated, ripped up, disgorged, blasted, and threw, mangled and bleeding, to the scavenging rabble, that fed ravenously upon it, and clamored always for more."
The tragedy of it is that all of this can be affirmed of the religious papers of our day in their onesided and lopsided presentations. I believe in the sacred God-given right of every person to study the scriptures for himself and the corollary that accompanies it, the right to form private judgments upon what is read. If this is done by someone who deeply loves the Lord I will regard him as my brother in the Lord, even though we may differ about the ideas he has formed. Jesus died for men and not their opinions. I refuse to destroy that for which He died for something for which He did not die.
20. What are your personal primary aims for the future?
There are two of them which I think to be of vital importance. I want to help in my weak way to restore the primitive pattern for the ecclesia of God, and also to lift up my feeble voice in behalf of the unity of all the believers. I hold that the sheep of God have been neglected and driven out to wander among the hills of sectism. It is my fond hope, that if my life is extended sufficiently, that I may help to summon them to the high mountain where salvation and safety await. I would like to put my shoulder to the wheel of the Restoration vehicle and push it out of the mud and mire of neglect and indifference where it has been stalled so long.
21. How do you plan to accomplish these objectives?
I plan to go wherever the Lord opens up a door for me. My constant daily prayer is that he will open up great doors and effectual unto me even though the adversaries be many. Thus far about the only adversaries I have encountered are among the brethren I know best. I have spoken several times in large Jewish synagogues. I have participated in two Schools for the Christian clergy conducted by Temple Israel, and have publicly asked questions and filed objections which were well received. I secured permission from Rabbi Jacobs to attend weekly meetings at the Hillel Foundation for Jewish students and have contributed my part. I was the only non-Jew in attendance at the School of Judaism in Saint Louis.
I have met with Roman Catholic classes and discussed with the priest in the presence of the students. The discussions became so intense that I was asked not to return. I deeply regret that as I believe that we were accomplishing a great deal of good. I loved those who attended, even the priest, and I do not believe they regarded me as an enemy. On several occasions I have met with members of the clergy of the Lutheran churches and have discussed the implications of our various positions. I have held lengthy talks with members of the Concordia Seminary and have been upon their grounds many times. I have repeatedly eaten with young seminarians at their luncheon in the refectory and talked with them about sprinkling as a substitute for baptism.
In none of these conferences has anything but a spirit of humility and kindness prevailed. No one became angry or heated, despite our great differences. I shall miss no opportunity to go where I can find a hearing. It is ridiculous to refuse to go to a place where there is no one who sees things as I do. That is the place where I want to go. If the apostles had refused to go to a place where there was no congregation, there would be none on earth today. They purposely chose the very places where there were none who agreed with them and so shall I. Fortunately, I have lost all fear of what men shall do to me, and my whole trust is in God.
The vision of many preachers is frightfully limited. They refuse to go to a place where there is no "faithful church" and yet there can be no "faithful church" until they go. On that basis, the greater part of humanity would be doomed to hell, unless they accidentally stumbled on to the truth and started a congregation. Then they could get a preacher to come and tell them what was wrong with them. I want to go where people do not see things as I do. I get uncomfortable around a congregation where everyone is lined up with me. I want to get into virgin fields, or fields where Satan has been having a field day. I do not like to build upon another man's foundation all of the time. I want to go beyond the present regions. If I wait until there is a congregation there I will never go, and I know that if I never go, there may never be a congregation.
22. Are there any encouraging aspects to be observed at present?
Yes, there are. I do not worry about such things, and the word "discouragement" is not in my spiritual vocabulary. The One whom I serve opened up the Red Sea for His people, and caused the walls of Jericho to fall down before them. He has not lost any of His power. He has the whole world in His hand. No power on earth can stand against Him. The political attitudes of all those who seek to manipulate God's people will some day fail. All I need to do is to get my bearings and march forward in faith. He will open up the way for me.
It is my task to sow and plant. It is his responsibility to give the increase. His word will not return unto Him void. All I need to do is to fulfill my part. But there are some good omens. Many people are being shaken, jolted and scared into studying more than ever before. I have spoken several times in denominational meeting-houses of late and been well-received. The question period which always follows my addresses have elicited many pointed and excellent questions. One encouraging feature is the increasing interest among some of my good Jewish friends.
23. Have you always held your present views with reference to restoration?
No, I have not! I came into this fellowship from a Lutheran background. My people on the maternal side were Danes. At first, I labored under the misconception that because we had discovered some truths which had been long hidden that we had found them all. Thus there was a time in my life when no problem was too great for me. I had all of the answers. I accepted without question the orthodox sermon outlines which had been handed down from previous generations, but when I saw they misapplied many scriptural texts, and violated most of the laws of Biblical interpretation, I began to investigate for myself.
I became convinced that we were well on the road toward creation of another sect. I saw the pressure groups manipulated by editors and preacher cliques, and beheld how the bulk of God's sheep were often exploited for the fleece. I learned how little any of us really knew, and how much more there was to learn. Accordingly, I began to lift up my eyes and look upon the fields. I saw how white they were to the harvest. My love for truth grew and with it a burning desire to share truth with my brethren and the world of mankind. I have made many mistakes which are saddening to reflect upon. I have wasted much time. However, I trust in God to extend unto me His amazing grace, and to save me through His mercy and love. Without that prospect I am sure that I would be of all men most miserable, but with it, I am lifted up and walk on higher ground.
24. What do you feel is the first great need of the congregations which are restoration minded?
The first great need is to exhibit toleration for those who differ with them. Toleration is not the endorsement of anything that is wrong but the simple enduring of one who thinks it is right. By remaining together and receiving one another in love we shall grow toward each other instead of away from each other, and we shall find that the word of unity will help to produce unity of the word. If we separate or drive one another out we will then be reduced to the need for fighting one another from that time on. This will only hinder us in our real purpose.
25. Do you think the holding of public debates will hasten the real restoration?
No, they may actually hinder it. I doubt that they will achieve any substantial good, for the simple reason that in modern public debates, two factions each select a champion and throw them both into the arena in defense of partisan views. Debaters today are actually representatives of party positions. I know that theoretically their purpose is to examine the evidence, sift it, and determine what is true, but practically it does not work out that way. Debates, as now conducted, do not lend themselves to calm, unbiased appraisal of the issues. There is the constant temptation to use any means at hand to gain personal victory. The lust for combat fires the brain and kindles the blood. I would not want to become a professional debater or a recognized Goliath for any company of Philistines.
It is true that I have engaged in some public debates but not often from choice, and it troubles me that I like debating. I may be forced to debate again rather than to see truth stigmatized, but my honest opinion is that in the long run, the cause may suffer in a community where such forensic struggles are waged. A much better approach would be that of the forum. With an unprejudiced chairman, two speakers would sit down at the same table on a public platform. Each in turn would be allowed 15 minutes to question his respondent, and the audience would be permitted to question either or both for an hour.
I am losing confidence in hit-and-run speakers who will not permit their positions to be examined in free and open questioning. Why should I spend two hours of my precious time listening to a man air his views and haranguing an audience, when I am not given opportunity to request clarification, or to examine those views? I thank you for these questions and even if you disagree with the answers I have given I still love you very deeply and cherish you.