Church of Christ Party
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
It is a rarity, seldom to be witnessed, to see a person boldly opposing either the doctrinal errors or the unscriptural measures of a people with whom lie has identified himself, and to whom he looks for approbation and support. If such a person arises in any party, he soon falls under the frowns of those who either think themselves wiser than the reprover, or wish so to appear. Hence it usually happens that such a character must lay his hand upon his mouth, or embrace the privilege of walking out of doors. Although this has usually been the case, we would hope that it would not always continue so to be.
It is generally presumed that a paper will soon fall into disrepute if it dare to oppose the views or practices of the leaders of the people addressed. Editors generally, too sensitive of this, are very cautious what they publish. Some of them are very consciously attentive to avoid giving offence; insomuch, that when an article is presented for insertion, the first objection to it sometimes is, "The people will not like this, and you know a man must please his customers."
All this may do very well when a writer proposes to please his readers, or when he pledges himself to support the tenets or practices of any people. But when the exhibition of truth and righteousness is proposed, neither the passions nor prejudices of men-- the reputation nor pecuniary interest of the writer, should be consulted."
In the face of these predictions as to what will happen, I propose to analyze the status of "a people with whom I have chosen to identify myself." I am affiliated with one segment of the Restoration movement. I am engaging in an investigation of a system which is known as "The Church of Christ." My thesis is that, generally speaking, it is not a restoration of the primitive church of God, but rather exhibits the nature and characteristics of a party, or sect. My purpose is to arouse those who are members of it to visualize it in its true light, so they may divest themselves of their sectarian tendencies, rise up, and begin anew the restoration program which was abandoned in order to defend the status quo. As it now exists, rent, torn, and divided "The Church of Christ" can never unite the world. It will complicate, rather than solve the problems of a divided Christendom.
The task attempted in this little journal is a difficult one, for the reasons assigned by Alexander Campbell. It is inherent in the party spirit that it seeks to perpetuate itself. To do this it must evict and exclude that which opposes it. Since the party spirit is a work of the flesh, and is evil, that which is driven out must be good. It is characteristic of all sectism that it always drives out the purifying influence. Martin Luther was excommunicated by the corrupt Roman Church; Thomas Campbell was forced from the Presbyterian Church; Alexander
[Page 2] |
These writings will never be read by hundreds in "The Church of Christ" because they will be debarred and burned by leaders, preachers, and elders, who control by suppression and boycott. Men who bitterly criticize and condemn others, regardless of their earnestness and sincerity, cannot stand to be condemned. Those who exercise thought control by prohibition and duress, think they are doing God service. They confuse "The Church of Christ" which they have constructed with the new covenant church of God, set up by the apostles of Jesus, and in their partisan zeal they consider themselves the exclusive recipients of God's mercy and grace. To criticize their profession or practice is, as they view it, to condemn the church for which our Saviour shed His blood. In spite of the penalty one must pay for such daring and boldness, in the interest of truth and righteousness, I shall give my reasons for believing that "The Church of Christ" is a modern sect or party which has grown up out of a non-sectarian attempt to unite all believers in Christ, by a restoration of the primitive order.
This does not mean that every congregation designating itself as a "Church of Christ" is under the stigma of this accusation. There are certainly congregations which are not sectarian in outlook or spirit. What we say will not concern them. Neither does this article imply that all who are members of "The Church of Christ" are sectarian. Thousands are not, although many more thousands have been made the victims of a narrow, bigoted, spiteful and venomous party spirit by indoctrination with the belief that the party has arrived, and the church represented by their particular faction has fully restored the plan and program of the Master. Actually "The Church of Christ" appears in a false role or guise. It has frequently deluded and imposed upon the hearts of men through slogans and manipulations of the scriptures, which serve to conceal the reality of its practice. Such grave and serious charges ought to be carefully weighed and pondered at length before being committed to writing where all and sundry may view them, and once written or uttered, should be challenged. I write these things in fear of the Judgment of God, and I shall meet the challenge to present the proof.
"The Church of Christ" is under the condemnation of Romans 2:1, 2: "Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God's Judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers" (Phillips' Translation). "The Church of Christ" has set itself up as a judge of the sectarian world. It is in no position to do that. It automatically condemns itself by committing the same sins, and engaging in the same practices. Let us calmly investigate some of these points at which this great organization inveighs against others.
The sectarian world is condemned as being hopelessly divided. Radio speakers for "The Church of Christ" point out the number of divisions in the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and other Protestant sects. But there is no group more torn, rent, divided, and beset by schisms today than the non-instrument heirs of the Restoration movement. They engage in more bitter, acrimonious, and caustic debates among themselves than all the rest of the religious world put together. There are more than twenty distinct factions among them, each of which, with few exceptions, claims to be the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of God upon earth, while regarding all of the
[Page 3] |
While spokesmen for "The Church of Christ" assail the religious world for their creeds, no group of people now in existence have devised, employed or enforced more unwritten creeds. The word "creed" is from the Latin credo, I believe. Whatever a man believes is his creed. Certainly whatever is required by any group as a test of admission to its fellowship is the creed of that group. Not all personal creeds are made authoritative or binding, but whatever is demanded by any group for admissibility to its membership or fellowship, is its creed. All of the factions under consideration claim to have "no creed but the Bible." A favorite slogan is "We speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where it is silent." This claim is proven to be ridiculous in the light of events. How can there be twenty divergent and non-cooperating factions, if all follow the Bible as their only creed?
The truth is that it is not the Bible, but opinions of it, and interpretations of it, which constitute the real creeds of all the warring factions. Revelation is what God said; interpretation is what men think he meant by what he said. So revelation is an expression of the divine mind; interpretation is the application of human minds to it, to determine in the light of reason, what is required of us. But the exaltation of interpretation to the place of authority, not only supplants the divine revelation, but creates a human basis of belief and worship, and the demanding of unvarying conformity to such a basis is popery undisguised. There is nothing infallible about human reasoning, or interpretation.
"The Church of Christ" is divided over colleges, orphan homes, old folks homes, benevolent societies, Sunday schools, lesson leaves, quarterlies, women teachers, evangelists, pastors, communion cups, leavened or unleavened bread, breaking the bread, fermented wine or grape juice, the time of serving the Lord's Supper, the coming of Jesus, whether pre-millennial or post-millennial, marriage and divorce, radio and television programs, the method of support of missionaries, re-baptism, fellowship, order of worship, and a host of other things, including such items as whether the cup for the Lord's Supper must have a handle on it, or not. Every one of these has at some time or place been made a test of fellowship, and has thus been elevated as the creed of some faction.
Members of "The Church of Christ" have always castigated "the denominations" for having a special clergy, and for creating a distinction between "clergy" and "laity" which gave impetus to the Great Apostasy. But they also have a special clergy system. "The minister" in "The Church of Christ" is nothing more or less than a clergyman. These take advantage of reduced rates in travel fares and encomiums bestowed by business upon "the clergy." They use "clergy certificates" on the bus and railroad lines, albeit most of them apply for such as "Ordained clergymen acting as evangelists," in the hope the last word will cancel out the implications of the first. Most of them do not know how an evangelist should act!
"The Church of Christ" seminaries have special classes for "ministerial students," and they talk of "entering the ministry" as a profession, just as others
[Page 4] |
In addition to the College of Arts and Sciences we will have a complete, thorough seminary, in which work for preachers and others who desire to become efficient church workers will be given. This work will lead to the B.Th. and Th.M. degrees.
It is no surprise to read, therefore, in Abilene Christian College Lectures, under the heading "Our Educational Program," this statement:
The church today demands and deserves a trained minister. Statistics show that our educated ministers received their early education in Christian colleges. The age calls for great preachers well trained.... The small college must train for the church Christian laymen; men who live above narrow prejudices and pettiness of spirit. Another great need of the church today is a large number of trained laymen.
Here is a distinction between "the trained minister" and "the trained layman." You cannot create a laity out of the many, without creating a clergy out of the few. (See this point fully developed in the author's book "The Royal Priesthood").
David Lipscomb saw this in his earlier life, and it prompted him to write these words:
We think the most fatal mistake of Alexander Campbell's life and one that has done much and we fear will do much to undo his life's work, was the establishment of a school to train and educate young preachers.
Brother Lipscomb explained why he thought this was a fatal mistake:
Brother Campbell in his later life, when his great mind had much failed, was used by those around him to seemingly approve much that he had condemned in his early days of vigor. He probably conceived the idea in his vigor that he could have the Bible taught to men who would teach others also without them becoming a separate order of clergy. If so, the result proves how sadly mistaken the great man was. (Gospel Advocate, 1875, page 345).
What David Lipseomb and Alexander Campbell saw in their early years, J. N. Armstrong, president of Harding College, realized in his latter years, as the following indicates:
I feel distressed sometimes over the condition of the church everywhere. For instance I think that our schools are all in line to build up the clergy and that the church in general is tending toward denominationalism. I do not know what can be done, maybe nothing, but I do think there is a need for us to put on the brakes, and warn the brotherhood about the definite trends of these times. I am not pessimistic, but my optimism does not keep me from facing facts. I think, as I said above, that all our schools are set for the training of professional preachers.
Preachers of "The Church of Christ" once made much ado about "the sectarian pastor system." For reasons which are quite obvious they do not say so much about it lately. They profess to believe that the elders are God's pastors, but there is a great gulf fixed between their profession and practice. The one-man hired minister in a congregation with bishops occupies exactly the same position among them as the pastor in other religious organizations. He is hired by contract, often after competition in a trial sermon exhibition, he has an office, a secretary, and the special listing in all advertising. He is morals adviser, counsellor, consultant, business manager, program director, and front man. He has exclusive right to the pulpit. He is a hired specialist in management, and he does what he is hired to do. Woe unto the careless soul who questions his right to do so!
[Page 5] |
It is useless, brethren, to oppose the "pastor system" when we are fast developing it, yea, when we have largely embraced it already.
Guy N. Woods, speaking on a lectureship program at Abilene Christian College, in 1939, affirmed:
It will not be seriously denied that there is an arrangement in operation in the church of Christ which bears a suspicious similarity to the pastor system of the denominations. It is idle to deny this.... We believe that the pernicious and church-destroying doctrine of majority rule is the outgrowth of the incipient pastor system now in operation among us. Other evils will result if a halt is not soon called.
In the same series of lectures, Roy Lanier voiced these sentiments:
The fact that these conditions exist is proof that our present trend is definitely toward the one-man pastor system. I do not believe preachers ought to be blamed for being the pastors of the churches. In many places they have found the elders incapable of doing the work, and in other places they were not financially able to take the time to do their work. So rather than see the work go undone, the preachers have done it for the elders. We have tried to justify ourselves in this by saying the elders are having the work done, overseeing it; doing the work by proxy. But the leading part taken by the average preacher silences this quibble.
L. L. Brigance was for years a professor in Freed-Hardeman College. He wrote in the July 24, 1941, Gospel Advocate, these words:
There is no denying the fact that the "pastor system" exists among the churches of Christ today. It is a growing evil. It constitutes a major menace to the cause of Christ. If it continues to develop as rapidly during the next quarter of a century as it has during the last one, the greater part of the church is going to be corrupted by it. "Brethren, we are drifting."
The seriousness in this particular phase is found in the fact that it was made a basis of division in the church, in conjunction with instrumental music. The two were placed in the same category. In Attitudes and Consequences, page 191, Homer Hailey writes:
Although the major wedge which divided the body, as we shall show in the next chapter, was instrumental music, the controversy over the "located preacher" and the titles "reverend" and "pastor" contributed its share of the division.
This poses a few questions. If the located preacher was an issue of such magnitude as to contribute to the division from the Christian Church, and the non-instrumental "Church of Christ" has now adopted and defends the system, should not apology be tendered to the Christian Church, for all the trouble caused over this matter? Regardless of the continued problem relative to the instrument, do not the non-instrument churches stand condemned for promoting division by agitating over a thing which their leading preachers and teachers now admit they have adopted? Would it not be an act of gentlemanly courtesy for the "located preacher" in any community where there is also a Christian Church, to go on the air, and confess that whereas the non-instrument church once raised a ruckus over the pastor system, they are now sorry, and ask for forgiveness? If they once deemed the located minister and instrumental music to be in the same category, and they now use the scriptures to uphold the located minister, and the same scriptures the Christian Church once used, is it possible they may sometime re-examine the scriptures dealing with music, adopt the instrument as they have the located minister, and defend it on the same basis as those who now use it? The organ in the choir loft and the located minister in the pulpit were once viewed in the same light you know!
"The Church of Christ" declares that it has no conferences, synods, or conventions to instigate procedures, or to formulate and influence policy. This is very misleading, for examination will show that it holds annual regional or district conventions which occupy the same place, and perform the same functions as the conventions it derides when held by others. In order to evade criticism these conventions are placed under the sponsorship of humanly-organized church-
[Page 6] |
Home and foreign mission statistics are revealed, with the missionaries being summoned from the field personally to make their reports. Special honorary dinners are arranged for the clergymen with extended service. Questions of church extension are discussed and committees appointed to further such. Choirs, glee clubs, and choral groups render special programs. Bands and orchestras give sacred concerts. There are pageants, plays, and junior theatricals for visitors. The faculty wives arrange teas for visiting women. There are exhibits and displays put on by various large and successful congregations, and other exhibits of wares by charitable, eleemosynary, missionary, and educational foundations and organizations. Publishers and suppliers of Sunday School materials have booths to display their latest offerings. There are classes for preachers, elders and women, as well as panel discussions on the problems and work of the church. Missionaries are selected and special funds raised for missionary and other endeavors.
The reality of the responsibility placed upon us by the great commission was emphasized by many of the speakers in harmony with the emphasis of Harding College class work.... On Thursday morning at the close of the service President Benson asked for those who had definitely decided to work in foreign lands to come to the front and eleven young people made their way through a packed auditorium to stand and make their intentions known.... One said it was in reality a unity meeting, bringing together so many preachers from so many parts of the brotherhood. Over five hundred dollars was given to the church building fund for Germany and eleven hundred and twenty dollars was given to build a school building in Africa. (Harding College Bulletin, Dec. 15, 1945. page 3).
That you may see that we do not misrepresent when we say that the college "lectureship" has been created to take the place of denominational conventions, we quote from an editorial by Joseph W. White, in Firm Foundation, April 14, 1959, page 226.
This is not stated to glorify Pepperdine College. The college is not the church, neither is it trying to do the work of the church. I do not believe that anyone there wants to "run" the church. However, for a people who have no sort of denominational connections, no headquarters on earth, and no conventions, the college lectureships have grown because they fill a need. Here a free, undenominational people can come together in huge numbers to share their joy, their faith, and their ideas.
The subject of this editorial was "The Spirit of California Churches." It is significant that under this heading a college would even be mentioned. It is more significant to learn that among those who have "no conventions" this type of lectureship has risen to fill a need. It is "Church of Christ" propaganda to refer to itself as undenominational, with no headquarters on earth, and having no conventions. Actually, this movement has been promoted into a huge denomination. Each faction has a headquarters in the United States, a center from which those in control can reach out and regulate congregations and force preachers into line. Most of these have a directory of preachers, a directory of churches, an official journal, and conventions disguised under terms more palatable to the constituency.
In an editorial in Gospel Guardian, April 16, 1959, page 772, occurs these statements:
The college lectureship has become a cut-and-dried propaganda forum for "our institutions," "our colleges," "our national radio program," "our national advertising agency," etc. We have a letter from a brother in Odessa, Texas, about the recent lectureship at Abilene. This man is telling us of the reaction of another brother who attended that affair: "He said there was more ballyhoo for various institutions and promotions than he had ever seen before. Seems like everybody had his own booth and was pushing, promoting, and ballyhooing their pet projects. Some of them had girls plugging their promotions, handing out circulars and pamphlets. He said rather than being what it ought to be it reminded him of a Roman Catholic bingo game."
[Page 7] |
"The Church of Christ" is inconsistent in the attacks made upon other religious organizations, and the censure of their practices. We cite a few instances which are undeniable. One of the causes of complaint against those designated "Digressives" was the use of special choirs. "The Church of Christ" contended that the singing must be congregational. Now, however, choruses and glee clubs from colleges and orphan homes regularly tour among the churches, presenting programs of sacred music, such programs being sponsored, arranged and advertised by the local churches.
In one of the church-related colleges in Arkansas, a certain professor was given free rein to oppose Christians bearing arms in time of war. Through him the school came to be recognized as a center of pacifism. His constant outpouring of printed propaganda strongly intimated that those who wore the uniform and engaged in combat duty were in the category of murderers. Yet the school eagerly enrolled every one of the returning servicemen who could be persuaded to take advantage of the G. I. educational bill which provided government financing for education in compensation for their time spent in the armed services. Consistency is not a virtue of these schools which boast a Christian atmosphere. Although they have made it appear that they have never taken money from the "church treasury" a field agent for one of them, said a few years ago, "They all do it, and they all deny it!"
It is a common thing for "The Church of Christ" to publish statements by Roman Catholics showing that these are enemies of the public schools. One such recent article began with this paragraph:
Since it is a very likely possibility that the Democrats will run a Catholic for the office of President in 1960, we believe that people are entitled to know about the Catholic attitude toward our country and its schools. After we have noticed this attitude, let us decide whether we are willing to accept Roman Catholic appraisal of our public schools. The following antagonism toward the public school system of America evidences the untrustworthiness of Roman Catholicism."
As to our country and its government, it is a well-documented fact that for years "The Church of Christ" in the southland has circulated the thesis of David Lipscomb that civil government originated with the devil in rebellion against God, the identical position, incidentally, of Jehovah's Witnesses. Thus there are thousands of members of the "Church of Christ" who dare not vote, hold office, or defend the country in time of attack, and whose sole responsibility of citizenship is discharged in the dubious practice of murmuring and complaining about the "powers that be."
The Roman Catholics are not more vociferous in many places than "The Church of Christ" leaders, in open antagonism to the public schools, which are labeled as "hotbeds of infidelity," "creeping cancers on society," and "contaminated fountains of moral putridity." Parents are urged not to send their children to public schools. They are threatened with dire consequences if they do. And, like the Catholics, "The Church of Christ" is now in the process of developing its own parochial schools from kindergarten through college, in order to teach its peculiar doctrine, and segregate its offspring from contact with other American children. Of course, like the Catholics, members of "The Church of Christ" are eager to get employment in the public schools as teachers, being willing to work in these "sink holes of infidelity and evolution" for the salary paid.
If the "antagonism toward the public school system of America evidences the untrustworthiness of Roman Catholicism," it exhibits the same untrustworthiness of Church-of-Christ-ism. We would be in a real predicament if the Democrats were to run a Roman Catholic for President, and the Republicans were to run a member of "The Church of Christ" at the same time. Those who desire to preserve their freedom could not conscientiously vote for either, and for the same reasons. Both favor parochial schools of the denomination to public
[Page 8] |
One seldom sees an article dealing with what is wrong with the "Digressives" as the instrumental factions are designated, that does not contain a scathing indictment of women preachers. It is always pointed out that when Christ called and sent forth the twelve and the seventy, not one of them was a woman. A look at any list of missionaries called and sent by "The Church of Christ" will disclose the names of many women directly supported by congregations. Apparently it is all right to send women as missionaries to the heathen, so if the "Digressives" would ship all of their women preachers to Africa, they could keep all of them. There is an indication of a growing tendency to use women speakers to address special meetings in this country. Perhaps in a few more years the objection to the practice of women preachers will be silenced as was that on "the located ministers," and for the same reason. Apparently, any practice in which we engage is scriptural! A hobbyist is one who opposes what we have; a sectarian is one who has what we oppose! If we do it, it is right; if others do, it is wrong.
The Restoration movement began with wonderful prospects at the outset of the last century. What transpired to sidetrack it from its original purpose and to turn its heirs into rabid partisans? No simple answer can be given. Certainly any such result is the product of multiple factors. But it has been a case of history repeating itself. Every attempt at reformation or restoration has terminated in formation of another sect. This one is no exception to the general rule.
The first generation of reformers, possessed of vision and courage, make tremendous sacrifices of time and effort to remove barriers and clear away debris. Those who follow them, thinking that the clearing is the goal, settle down and proceed to erect walls and build a fortress about it to protect their gains and discoveries. Opinions are crystallized into tests of fellowship, and interpretations are welded into unwritten creeds. When other reformers arise who challenge the idea that the clearing is the promised land, and who regard it as but a temporary resting place in the wilderness, they are driven out into exile. Those who will not conform to the party norm, but whose eyes are lifted up to the far off hills beyond which lies the realization of our hopes, are considered dangerous, and regarded as mischief makers and seditionists. Unless they are possessed of an uncommon degree of love which transcends all partisan considerations they will form a faction of their own sympathizers, regard them as composing the "true church," and, in time, proceed to do unto others as it was done unto them. This has happened repeatedly. It is the tragic history of religious reformatory movements.
The greatest error contributing to the sectarianizing of "The Church of Christ" occurred when adherents ceased to regard the Restoration as a movement and came to look upon it as the church. This marked the culmination of progress toward the ideal, and the beginning of the defense of the status quo. At this juncture men ceased to regard themselves as
[Page 9] |
As factions multiplied in the movement, the searching of the scriptures became a fine art of specialists who were rivals in the field of controversy and polemics, and whose purpose was to justify the party. The constant research to find flaws in others and to rationalize the partisan position could only result in self-righteousness and the thwarting of God's purpose among men. The criterion was not the meaning of the Holy Spirit, but the inability of an opponent to reply. Vital distinctions were glossed over and lost, and other distinctions were made where the Spirit made none. It is inherent in any religious party that it forms its own glossary of terms which are made to mean what the party wants them to mean. Each party has its own definitions.
No group is a greater offender in this than "The Church of Christ." These brethren use "loaded terms" calculated to mislead and deceive the unwary and uninitiated. To some of them, the background and context of a passage mean but little, if the passage can be utilized to bludgeon an unsuspecting foe. Of course, hundreds do this sincerely, having been taught the authorized or party-approved application. One can almost tell which school a preacher attended by listening to him on the radio for a little while. He bears the mark of his "alma mater" and the "cut of his jib" indicates where he was in dry dock. The cliches, spurious arguments, and glib replies, have been sanctified by several generations of partisan pulpiteers.
This issue of our little journal will bring down upon our head the anathemas of "the powers that be" in the institution called "The Church of Christ." But, like the holy apostle, "We also believe, and therefore speak." Our love extends to every member of every faction in "The Church of Christ." It is our conviction that many in their partisan zeal have been betrayed into a false emphasis and are espousing a fallacious position. That does not arouse our hatred or animosity, but it does increase our compassion toward those who have been blind followers of the party.
We love the church of God. It is our conviction that it embraces within its borders every child of God in this world. We do not believe there is a single saved person outside of its environs. We regard it as the one body, of which every person who has been born again, is a living, vital member. The church of Christ is a divine fellowship. It is the holy, apostolic, and catholic church of God upon earth. Every person who is in the church of Christ is my brother and I am bound to him by spiritual ties, invisible and intangible, which have been forged by the cross, and sealed by the blood of the crucified Jesus. It is our desire to labor for a restoration to this earth of the primitive order which characterized that church from its inception. The party spirit is antagonistic to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, through which God dwells in the church. It is for that reason I must oppose every attempt to factionalize the One Body, and must resist every invasion to capture it for the glory and aggrandizement of any party which would prostitute its high calling to further their selfish aims.
I thank God that there are many congregations composed of humble followers of the Christ who are seriously interested in divesting themselves of the sectarian attitude. There are no doubt those in
[Page 10] |
I was once a Lutheran. I left this human party with its creed, its spirit of exclusiveness, and its parochial schools established to perpetuate "the faith" and to regiment the minds of students, so they would "goose-step" in unison with the party music. I was attracted by the Restoration plea in its beauty, glory and freedom. I grew up in a segment of the disciple brotherhood which regarded itself as "the faithful church." It is composed of wonderful people, humble, unassuming and sincere, except in matters of partisan defence. For years I was regarded as a champion of that party and "its position." I felt there were no children of God outside of the fence inside which we stayed. We constituted the kingdom of God on earth. Jesus had no other subjects in the entire world. All others in the religious realm were either hobbyists or sectarians. We were neither. We were the elect of God, and besides us there were no other. The fathers of this party, before my birth, had declared that those who viewed things differently would not be regarded as brethren. We accepted their interpretation, declaration, dictum, and verdict, and began to fit the sacred scriptures to it, making "brotherhood" contingent upon agreement in opinion and interpretation.
We were inconsistent! There never was a congregation where all agreed. In some places class discussions were forums of dissenting views. But none of these things moved us so long as all had the correct position on the one thing that counted. The result of such legalism was that the elders often became legislators, demanding acquiescence to their edicts under threats of excommunication. Love for the erring one was no consideration; one must meekly submit even though intellect rebelled, or be forced out by cold, formal process of law. Preachers who proclaimed to others the autonomy of the local church, ignored their own teaching, and constituted themselves brotherhood regulators, sometimes ruining one with whom they took issue even before he knew what had happened. These are all symptoms of the party spirit, so in contrast with the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
When I became aware of how far we had drifted from the primary ideals of the Restoration movement, and saw how many misused and abused God's Word, explaining passages arbitrarily to justify a cherished position, I became convinced that no faction is the church of God. It is too little, too circumscribed, too exclusive, and too land-locked to confine God's mercy and grace. I was then forced to examine farther, and I reached the conclusion that as no one faction growing out of the Restoration movement is the church of God, so that movement as such, is not now, and never was the church of God. That church has always been in existence. There has never been a time since Jesus sat down at the Father's right hand that he has been a king without a kingdom; a shepherd without sheep; or a head without a body. The church was in existence when Alexander Campbell was born.
We feel that unless there is a complete revolution in attitude we will doom ourselves to become more sectarian. The world cries for leadership out of the gloom created by the foggy thinking of men. We cannot supply the help that is required by a holier-than-thou attitude. We must be ready to go where God opens up a door to testify of our convictions. It will avail little to preach year after year to the same people, and talk about those we never see. We must cease to trust for salvation in slogans, shibboleths, traditional sayings, or walls of our own
[Page 11] |
It is possible that there may be hundreds of God's children on earth in the church of Christ, who are not in an American-style "Church of Christ." There may be thousands who have never heard of the Restoration movement. We know that the implication in such statements grates on the ears of many. Those who are more charitable toward us think we are growing soft, compromising, and becoming "liberal"; those less charitable think we are going crazy and losing our mind. So strange a sight is it in this world of sectism to see a non-sectarian; so rare in this era of hate for one to love all men; that such a person is regarded as mad or insane, even as the apostles on Pentecost were thought to be drunken when filled with the Spirit.
I have a very deep regard for those in every faction. In spite of their bitter divisions, fighting, schism, and strife, I do not dislike them. I pray for them. I know what wide divergency there is in the profession and practice of most of them. Many are unhappy, frustrated, discontent, and beset by fears. Their course can only lead to more contention, animosity and separation in the future. Their attitude will spawn other divisions. Each succeeding generation suckling the partisan breast and nourished with the pap of party spirit, will contribute its share of hostilities and rivalry. Every new truth learned will be the signal for an outbreak of internecine warfare. They will continue to stigmatize and recriminate. The world will not be made a better or more peaceful place, but the brethren will contribute more and more to confusion and consternation.
Why do I not abandon them? One does not desert those whom he loves. Does an arm desert the body? Moreover, I am convinced that the principles which gave birth to the Restoration movement were sound, and the premises upon which it proceeded were correct. The movement has run aground because of abandonment of those principles. We must re-affirm those premises. We must re-activate those principles. We must restore the Restoration. To do this, we must correctly evaluate our status in the Christian realm. We should neither over-estimate our importance nor underestimate the task to which we have been called in this decadent age.
The modern system denominated "The Church of Christ" cannot save us from the foes that threaten our civilization. With its emphasis upon big programs, big preachers, big money, and big buildings, it will only serve to obscure the program of God for mankind. In a wishy-washy world its arbitrary, dogmatic assertions made with the assurance of personal conceit, will appeal to the ignorant and unthinking, who seek for security in a creedal basis, but their souls will still be empty, and their spirits remain a vacuum except for disturbing and recurring doubts. It requires more than belief in water baptism and opposition to instrumental music to satisfy the deep hunger of a soul that pants for God as the deer does for the water brooks.
It is our hope in succeeding issues to point the way to better things, to suggest very humbly what we may do to again go forward. It will do us no good to count statistics, to compare the number of converts with those made by other groups. Unless we really grow toward God, numerical growth is of little value. The world will not be made better by a fast growing sect. We shall seek to delve deep into causes and conditions, and to write from the heart, fully aware that it is still true that the essence of our relationship to God is expressed in loving Him with all of our soul, heart, might, and strength, and to love our neighbor as we love ourself. We only ask a careful reading of what we write. Our love for you will not be lessened if you cannot agree with all of our statements and conclusions. We only commend you unto God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among them that are
[Page 12] |