No. 26, October 1997

 

THEY DIFFERED BUT STILL UNITED

 

            When the two wings of our Movement united in Lexington, Ky. in 1832, they were well aware of their differences. The Stone and Campbell forces had no such illusions as "union in conformity" or "unity based upon uniformity." They rather accepted unity as a gift of the Holy Spirit - unity in diversity.

 

            The Stone churches had existed since 1804, the Campbell churches since 1812. They were both old enough to be set in their ways, as most of us are. But for a few years they had been talking to each other and learned that they had much in com­mon, not only in their mutual devotion to Jesus Christ but in a common passion for the unity of all Christians.

 

            It started in small prayer meetings together in Georgetown, Ky, home to Barton W. Stone and John T. Johnson, who led in the effort. They were soon talking and praying about uniting their efforts. They called two meetings at the High St. Christian Church in Lexington over the holidays of 1831-32, one the Christmas weekend, the second the New Year’s weekend.

 

            It was an unlikely event. It did not yet have the blessings of their most eminent leader, Alexander Campbell. And it was apparent from the outset that there would be many, including entire congregations, that would not go along with the idea of uniting the two churches. But still they had the vision to go ahead, looking to God to make them one people dedicated to the task of "uniting the Christians in all the sects."

 

            A listing of some of their differences will illustrate the magnitude of their task:

 

            1. They did evangelism differently. The Stone churches were more emotional in their method, even to the use of the mourner’s bench, which was common in the evangelism of that day. The Campbell churches were more rational and proposi­tional in their approach, disdaining the likes of a mourner’s bench. Moreover, the Stone people emphasized evangelism and had numerous evangelists, while the Campbell folk had ne­glected evangelism, having only Walter Scott in the field.

 

            2. They differed on an ordained ministry. The Stone churches had an ordained ministry, and only ordained ministers were to baptize and serve Communion. The Campbell churches were anti-clerical and lay-oriented. They stressed the priesthood of all believers and allowed anyone to baptize and do communion.

 

            3. They never agreed on anyone way to identify them­selves as a church, so they in time called themselves by three names: Christians or Christian Church (Stone’s preference), Disciples of Christ (Campbell’s preference), and Church of Christ (generally accepted). They were known by others by all three of these names.

 

            4. They differed on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Stone people stressed the Spirit’s influence in conversion and in the life of the believer, while the Campbell churches were inclined to limit its role to the Scriptures and the preaching of the gospel. Some of the Stone people opposed the union because of Campbell’s "head religion."

 

            5. While their mutual passion for unity led to their becom­ing one church, they differed in their approach. While the Stone churches were more ecumenical and called for unity simply on the basis of faith in Christ, the Campbell churches, at least early on, sought unity on the basis of a restoration of primitive Christianity.

 

            6. They even differed on baptism. While they both held that baptism was by immersion, they never agreed on just how it relates to salvation, or whether it is necessary to Communion and membership. Too, the Campbell people always empha­sized the ordinance more than did the Stone churches.

 

            Beside these differences there was the rather serious con­flict between Campbell and Stone on the nature of the preexis­tent Christ. Stone was accused of being an Arian, a criticism that led Campbell to be less than enthusiastic about the proposed union. But still the two men not only fully accepted each other as brothers, but went right on working together in the cause of the unity of all believers.

 

            It should get our attention - we who have had a proclivity to divide over our differences - that our pioneers were able to effect a major union between two churches in the face of such diversity. Are our differences today - instrumental music, societies, Sunday Schools, Communion cups, millennial theo­ries - of greater significance than their differences? If their passion for unity transcended such differences as they had, would not a similar passion on our part transcend ours?

 

            Our pioneers show us that it isn’t differences that divide Christians, just as it isn’t differences in a marriage that cause divorce. We will have our differences. We can no more see everything alike than we can look alike. It is a lack of "forbear­ing one another in love" and a factious spirit that causes division.

 

            They did have much in common, just as our fractured Movement today has, but what mattered most in effecting their union was a principle enunciated by Alexander Campbell: So long as they hold forth the Head, who is Christ.

 

            That principle shows that diversity has its limits. We are not in unity/fellowship with "anybody and everybody," as our critics sometimes charge us with believing, but only those who are in Christ. So, it is unity in diversity – with limits.

 

            Faithfulness to Christ must always be the rule for unity and fellowship. So long as they hold forth the Head, who is Christ!

 

            When we are called on to make some judgment of that faithfulness in others, we may err; but is it not better to err on the side of acceptance than on the side of rejection. Isn’t that what forbearance means? – Leroy

 

WHEELCHAIR CHURCH

 

            I was visiting an aged sister in a nursing home that I frequently call on. I found her in a social room where she was assembled with 25 others, all in wheelchairs. The occasion was . a sing-song. I joined the party, making that my visit. It turned out to be a thoughtful experience.

 

            Some sight it was, a roomful of wheelchairs! Some were completely out of it, zombie-like, curled up and strapped in. Whatever was to happen could have no meaning to them, but I figured they were wheeled in by the staff to provide them with something to do, even if they didn’t know what was going on. But more than half of them were alert enough to enjoy the occasion, some more than others.

 

            I say it was thoughtful. I mean it set me to thinking as I sat there with them, holding the hand of the dear sister I had come to visit. They were all women except for one man. I studied them, wheelchair by wheelchair, and I thought of those lines in Ps. 102:11: "My days are like a shadow that lengthens, and I wither away like grass." With one and then another I allowed the chapters of their lives to pass before me. They were all once babes in the arms of a caring mother; then they were little girls playing with dolls; then teenagers flirting with boys; then they were grown women with babies of their own.

 

            The shadows lengthened. They were soon grandparents, then widows, and at last in a nursing home, even in a wheel­chair. There they all were, withering away like grass. And all so quickly. It leads one to conclude that the Preacher in Ecclesiastes had a point when he lamented: "It is all vanity and a striving after wind."

 

            Whatever tales of woe might have been told from that one small group, we had a lively party instead. Animated staffer, with a double portion of patience, led us in such peppy tunes as "Down By the Old Mill Stream," "A Bicycle Built for Two," and "Yankee Doodle Dandy." A smiling 93-year old, a resident who came from that part of the home where folk can still care for themselves, played the piano with vigor.

 

            Once we began singing spiritual songs – and the pianist knew them all – I figured she had probably played the piano in Baptist churches for 60 or 70 years. She was such a delightful thing to behold, as gifted as aged, that I was determined to stay to the end so that I could meet her.

 

            Once we got into "Amazing Grace" and "The Old Rugged Cross" I realized that it was not only a party but church as well. My first "church" where the congregation was all in wheel­ chairs. A wheelchair church! The singing may have been a bit out of tune, and a number of them completely out of it, but still this too was worship - and was not the party ("Yankee Doodle Dandy") also worship? And who knows but what it was the kind of worship that pleases God most.

 

            One lady in particular was really with it. She not only sang "Take the Name of Jesus With You" with the rest of us, but she kept on drooling out the lines after the music stopped, all by herself!

 

            The leader gave a short homily on being thankful, speaking softly, kindly, patiently. She told the story of a lady who thanked her friend for the apple she brought her. The friend protested that it was only an apple. But the lady said, "When you’re thankful for it, the apple tastes better." And all of life tastes better, she went on to say, when you’re thankful.

 

            I met the pianist before I got away, a woman of rare beauty at any age, and learned that she had been a music teacher in nearby schools, coaching many a chorus through the years. And she had played the piano at Methodist churches for two genera­tions. I studied her hands - like wine they were made elegant by age. Now, at 93, she has a wheelchair church, six days a week, and still going strong. It is apparent that life is joyful to her. The shadow continues to lengthen, but it is OK.

 

            On the way out I paused at the desk to say to the attendant: "There were 26 wheelchairs in there, all with women in them except one." Then I asked her, "Will there be more women in heaven than men?" Her reply was classic: "The men are already there!"

 

I could only lamely reply, Maybe.

 

            On the way home I was reminded of how it is presumed, or so it seems, that everyone goes to heaven. Did you ever attend a funeral but what the deceased had gone to heaven? Movie stars, sport stars, politicians, world leaders, they all go to heaven when they die. And why are there mostly women in nursing homes? The men have already gone to heaven!

 

            Someone needs to remind us that it may not be so.

 

            That may have been the most thoughtful part of my experience. All these old folks - all of us - as we see the shadows lengthen and as we decay like grass, do well to ask, Where will we spend eternity? We don’t go to heaven just because we grow old and die. It is not necessarily from wheelchair to glory. Dying and going to heaven are not equivalent, as the world (and sometimes even the church) seems to suppose. - Leroy

 

 

OUR CHANGING WORLD

 

ON THE QUEEN ELIZABETH 2ND

 

            We were met at the New York airport by a Cunard minibus and driven through the crowded streets of New York to the harbor where the QE2 was docked. After a long wait and a check of our credentials, we were at long last allowed to go aboard.

 

            Our first impression was how immense the ship was. The brochure had given us some idea of the size by comparing it to a football field-length of three football fields, tall as a thirteen story building. It has the capacity to carry 1,850 passengers and has a crew of 1,000. It was like a little city with three large restaurants, a library, a theater, four swimming pools, a recreation and workout gym, a casino, a spa, a boutique, shops, lounges and many other areas.

 

            There were a variety of activities available: lectures, classical music concerts, computer courses, fitness program, swimming, dance lessons, Las Vegas type shows with scantily-clad gals doing their thing, shuffleboard, basketball, jogging, and golf to name some of the things.

 

            Leroy attended some Shakespeare lectures, while I attended a couple of lectures by British royal insiders. One being Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary and the other a friend of Prince Charles. He revealed that he had advised Prince Charles not to disclose his infidelities in his approved biography, but Charles did not choose to take his advice and came to regret it. The lecturer thought the monarchy was in a crisis of survival and that Charles and Diana would greatly influence the outcome. That was before Diana’s fatal accident.

 

            The navigator of the QE2 also gave a lecture on the inside workings of navigation-much more to it than meets the eye. There were six navigators on each trip and one was on duty at all times. Leroy ask him what would happen if someone fell overboard. The navigator replied that they would lower one of their smaller boats and try to get to him quickly since it would take the QE2 too long to turn back.

 

            We were all assigned to a dining table so we had the same table mates, and came to enjoy their company. The service was elegant and the food simply unsurpassed. Perhaps the food was the outstanding feature of the trip.

 

            Leroy got in his jogging on the top deck each morning and loved every minute of it. He was awed by the beauty of the sunrise over the ocean. Since this was our first cruise ever, we loved just watching the ocean and seeing an occasional dolphin leap out of the water. The sea was unusually calm the six days we were aboard. We never could comprehend the vastness of the ocean. Water everywhere one looked for six days!

 

            We docked at Southampton, England. Leroy was on deck to watch the intricacies of docking a huge ship. (Never know when you might be called on to dock a ship!) While still out at sea the ship was gradually slowed until by the time it was near the dock it drifted in with a gentle touch. Is life like that? - Ouida

 

LONDON

 

            I have conned Ouida into sharing her impressions of the Queen Elizabeth 2nd, which is a tall order since the Old Lady is so impressive. I will confine my report of the trip to our week in London.

 

            I was up while it was still dark the morning we docked in Southhampton. I wanted to see the sunrise and get in my run around the deck, eight times (a sign informs the jogger that five times is a mile), as well as to witness the docking. Tug boats inched the big ship into place, quite a sight to watch. Our group was soon on a bus and on our way to London, 60 miles away.

 

            It was Sunday and we were too late to get to one of our churches that we hoped to visit. Since we left London the following Sunday too early to visit said church, we settled both times for meeting with Anglicans at Westminster Abbey, which was within walking distance of our hotel. Knowing that Anglicans are sometime closed Commun­ion, I told Ouida that if they did not serve us that we would partake in our hearts. But they graciously invited “all those baptized into Christ,” and we joined in the meaningful service. On the second Sunday we were there, at 8 a.m., prayers were said for “Diana, the Princess of Wales,” who had died only a few hours before in Paris.

 

            On our walk back to the hotel the papers were already on the streets, headlining the death of the Princess. A pall seemed to be over the city. On our way to the airport for our flight home the bus chanced to pass by Kensington Palace, Diana’s residence. Already masses of people were gathering with their flowers. It was all very sad. Once we were home America seemed to be as affected as England.

 

            Earlier in the week we toured the innards of the Abbey where monarchs have been entombed for centuries, along with missionaries (David Livingstone), dramatists (Lawrence Olivier, the last to be entombed there), and poets (Rudyard Kipling). There is a plaque honoring Churchill, but he is buried elsewhere. When I saw tombs for both Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, I was confused, for I remembered that the former had executed the latter. Would the murderer allow the murdered to be buried in the Abbey?

 

            A guide explained that when Mary’s son, James 1, became king, succeeding Elizabeth, he moved his mother’s remains to the Abbey. “You’ll notice,” the guide volunteered, “that he made Mary’s tomb as elegant as Elizabeth’s!”

 

            Some British still see Mary as the rightful heir to the throne, as they did back in 1558. Elizabeth, aware of Mary’s claim, at last executed her after imprisoning her for 18 years. You may recall how the doughty Mary bedecked herself in her royal robes for the execution - and forgave the swordsman who had been imported at her request to do the ghastly deed. The guide at the Abbey told me that Elizabeth, who was hesitant to take her rival’s life even when her throne was at risk, claimed that she had been tricked and didn’t realize she was signing the death warrant. He added, as if he might have some Scottish sentiment, “She knew all right!”

 

            It was a commentary on our world and its history. Even in Westminister Abbey, the world’s most famous church, monarchs lie buried who murdered each other!

 

            I sat with the guide for a time, just the two of us, an aged man who volunteers for the Abbey. He at last kidded me: “I tell Americans that if they hadn’t had that big fuss with George V they would now have Elizabeth II instead of Bill Clinton!” I responded with, “But then we would have missed Roosevelt and Eisenhower.” He conceded, “Well, I’ll give you that one.” I had just seen the statues the British have erected for those two Americans who made it possible for them to defeat Hitler!

 

            We saw much of London from the top of a bus (with our passes that allowed unlimited use we rode them often and to the end of the line!). We also toured the Thames, shopped at Harrod’s, loitered around Trafalger Square and Piccadilly Circus, dined at a pub, walked about Buckingham Palace, and even went to a musical, “Jesus Christ Superstar,” which we found moving. At the British Museum we saw the Rosetta Stone, the Magna Carta, and two of the oldest Biblical manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. We were also impressed by the calligraphy section, which included the Floreffe Bible, penned in 1140.

 

            The visit to the Museum provided the only crisis of our journey, if you don’t count Diana. Midway through the exhibits the security alarm went off, and something like a thousand of us were summarily escorted from the cavernous facility, amidst rumors of a fire. That provided for what Ouida and I call “marginal time,” which is not to be wasted. So while the others were gaping and waiting in the outer grounds, we walked about that part of London.

 

            Ouida enjoys studying people’s homes, their yards (if existent), flowers (usually in window boxes) and way of life. After a couple of hours we were allowed back in the museum, never quite knowing what it was all about, but apparently an insignificant fire somewhere. Even the guards didn’t know!

 

            Ouida especially enjoyed the National Gallery where we saw some of the most renowned art in the world. We lingered at Rembrandt’s “Belshazzar’s Feast,” which depicts the king transfixed by the hand­writing on the wall, hand and all. His attendants around the table are terrified. We could sense the tension just standing there before it. It is a wow!

 

            Some in our group made side trips, a few even taking the Chunnell to Paris. But we decided to “do” what they call Central London, which surrounded our hotel, the famous but old Grosvenor, which opens into the renowned and mammoth Victoria Station.

 

            We were with a tour group, so all the troublesome details of travel were taken care of by our director, except that we were on our own in London. Our group had a farewell dinner together, and we said goodbye after an exciting two weeks together.

 

            We flew home on Virgin Atlantic, a new airline for us, and once in New York we were not long in getting on to DFW, only 19 miles from our home, which we found much warmer than London. It is an interesting world! – Leroy

 

 

            This past summer the North American Christian Convention (Independent Christian Churches) and Jubilee (Churches of Christ) convened at the same time, one in Kansas City, the other in Nashville. At one evening session at Jubilee Rubel Shelly read a letter from Victor Knowles. At the same time Victor Knowles read a letter from Rubel Shelly to the NACC. Each letter expressed regret for the shameful division between the two churches, and a desire that something be done about it. Both assemblies showed an enthusiastic response by long and sustained applause.

 

            Speaking of Rubel Shelly, who addressed our World Convention of Churches of Christ in Calgary in 1996, he has suggested he might try to get up a plane full of folk for the WCCC in Brisbane, Australia, Aug. 2-6, 2000. If he doesn’t fill it with Nashville folk, we might have them stop at DFW for more of us. There will of course be many flights from the U.S., and this is your chance to visit Down Under at the lowest possible cost and attend a great convention of our people from all over the world. Write the WCCC, 1101 19th Ave. S, Nashville 37212 and ask to be put on the mailing list, or Email: worldconv@aol.com. It is none too early to start planning.

 

            There is something of a crisis in the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. “We Are Church,” a reform movement demanding sub­stantial change, is conducting a massive, worldwide petition cam­paign. Its goal is to deliver several minion signatures to the Vatican later this year. They have already collected 2.5 million signatures in Europe and plan for at least one million is U.S. Among the changes it demands: acceptance of birth control and abortion; ordination of women and marriage for priests; a more liberal stance on divorce and remarriage; more democracy in the election of bishops and priests. It is receiving considerable media attention. A cardinal of the church has described the movement as “a second Protestant Reformation worse than the first.”

 

            It is generally known that Max Lucado has been a frequent speaker for Promise Keepers. But it may not be widely known that in one recent PK gathering he washed the feet of an older minister whom he described as a mentor of his youth, a man who taught him the grace of God. This was Stanley Shipp, another Church of Christ minister. This must really be a time of change when one of our preachers washes the feet of another of our preachers before tens of thousands in a football stadium! We can justly ask what a difference it might have made all these years if our combatants had washed each other’s feet instead of debated each other.