No. 56. August 2002

 

WHAT I WANT FOR CHURCHES OF CHRIST

 

            Now that we in Churches of Christ have begun to look at ourselves more objectively as a church   even more critically   I hope these proposals might find a place on the table for discussion. While some of these items apply uniquely to Churches of Christ, most of them are more or less applicable to churches in general. If we in Churches of Christ are presently in “an identity crisis,” as some of our leaders put it, it is no less the case with many denominations. Hopefully, these ideas will be helpful in the identification process.

 

      1.   Let us recover our heritage as a unity people.

 

            If Churches of Christ need to redefine themselves, as some of our leaders suggest, this is the place to start. The Restoration Movement was “born of a passion for unity, and unity has been its consuming theme,” as Robert Richardson put it, and its mission was “to unite the Christians in all the sects.”

 

         Alexander Campbell referred to unity as his “darling theme” and Barton Stone’s motto was “Let Christian unity be our polar star.” The principles they forged on a rugged frontier were unity principles; their founding documents were unity documents; their slogans were unity slogans. And they themselves, at first two separate movements, became one unity movement as early as 1832.

 

            One would suppose that we in Churches of Christ, with all our divisions, have a heritage of factionalism. Somewhere along the line we got off track. We must repudiate our divisive ways, and reconnect to our true heritage. Once we see ourselves as the unity people we are supposed to be, we will position ourselves to be a blessing not only to ourselves but to the larger church as well. This is our message to divided Christendom: “In essentials, unity, in opinions (and methods), liberty; in all things, love.”

 

            There are many encouraging signs that we have begun to make this mid-course correction. A recent instance of this is a statement made by Max Lucado in an interview in the Christian Chronicle (July, 2002). In response to a question as to what Churches of Christ might do, Max referred to our heritage in Stone-Campbell as “the days when we did it best.” Referring to how Stone and Campbell were “passionate in love” and “tolerant in controversy,” he went on to say, ‘They accepted all who accepted Christ and disagreed agreeably.”

 

      2.   Let us resolutely and absolutely renounce our more recent sectarian heritage.

 

            Once when I had set forth in some detail our unity heritage in Stone-Campbell. a disturbed brother said. “But that is not my heritage in Churches of Christ.” He was, of course, right. Since our separation from the Disciples of Christ, which was solidified by the time of the census in 1906, we have divided or sub-divided again and again. It is not unusual for us to have four or five different kinds of Churches of Christ in the same community, none of which have any fellowship with the others. We often “solve” problems by dividing. We have divided over opinions and methods, which is contrary to the principles that gave us birth as a people.

 

            This is what we must summarily repudiate as sinful, disgraceful, and scandalous. We must renounce our sectarian ways and reclaim our true heritage. We must speak with moral clarity   We have been wrong!   in our journals, in our schools, and from our pulpits. We must do what Roman Catholics did in 1965 at Vatican II. They repudiated their long-standing practice of rejecting other Christians as “erring schismatics,” and acknowledged them as true sisters and brothers in Christ. They looked at their own history with a critical eye and decided they had been wrong, and then confessed it. We need to have our own Vatican II.

 

      3.   Let us in particular repudiate our historic position of making instrumental music a test of fellowship and a cause of division.

 

            We have not been wrong in singing a cappella. All churches sometime sing a cappella. We have been wrong in making it a test of fellowship, and in allowing it to become a cause for division. We have rejected others as equals in Christ because of their use of instruments in worship. It should embarrass us that it has become a means of identifying who we are   the church that does not use instruments of music! Our sin has been to treat a matter of opinion (or method) as if it were an essential. We have made it part of the core gospel when it is but a marginal issue.

 

            Our position must now be that while for conscience sake we will remain non-instrumental, we will no longer make it a test of fellowship. We are now to realize that instrumental music is an issue upon which Christians can differ and still be one in Christ. We can have “instrumental” churches and “non-instrumental” churches and still accept each other as equals. It is a matter of congregational preference. Some of us in Churches of Christ can even believe that for US to sing with instruments it would a sin without insisting that it a sin for others. We can even believe that we are closer to the spirit of the New Testament when we sing a cappella. as I believe. without rejecting those who differ with us.

 

            The good news is that instrumental music is increasingly becoming a non-issue among us. But we must do more than this by being proactive in denouncing this sectarian dogma that has done so much harm for so long.

 

      4.   While we are to continue to be Churches of Christ, let us become what Churches of Christ truly ought to be   in the light of Scripture and our own true heritage.

 

            I disagree with those progressive, avant garde Churches of Christ who seek to escape legalism and sectarianism by leaving their heritage and becoming some other kind of church. They change their name to something other than “Church of Christ.” They risk throwing out the baby with the bath water. Rather than to renounce their heritage, let them resolve to be what they believe a true “Church of Christ” should be. If one’s mission is to help renew and reform the church, it is a mistake to leave. Changes are best effected from within. Just as a leopard cannot change its spots, we cannot change who we are. We are not Lutherans or Presbyterians or Baptists or Methodists. We are who we are: Churches of Christ with our own distinct history and heritage.

 

            We are to grow and bear fruit where we have been planted. If we need to make changes   and we do   then let the work begin from within in a loving and forbearing way. We do not help our people by leaving. Those we can help the most are our own people. We are to stay put and work for renewal where we are   a solution I would advise for every concerned believer, regardless of the denomination. We are adrift when we become a “cut flower” people, separated from our roots.

 

            This appeal conforms to Scripture. Most all the churches in the New Testament had something wrong with them. The “faithful” among them were never told to leave and start a “loyal” church. The church at Sardis was “dead,” but there were a “few” who “walked with Christ” (Revelation 3:4). They didn’t walk out, but did their walking where they were, in that church!

 

      5.   Let us become part of the body of Christ at large, cooperating with other Christians in the work of redeeming the world.

 

            We can do this without surrendering any truth we hold, and without approving of any error on the part of others. We can work with other believers, not because we agree on every doctrinal issue, but because of our common devotion to Jesus Christ. There is truth in the adage, “Service unites, dogma divides.” Those who build a “Habitat” house together or join hands to help in some natural disaster learn that doctrinal differences become marginal, while their mutual love for Christ moves to the center. As our communities become more pluralistic, with Buddhists and Muslims as our neighbors, we Christians are coming to see that we have far more in common than differences.

 

            As we experience unity in mutual service with other Christians, we may all come to see the inappropriateness of our sects and denominations. Like Barton W. Stone, we may eventually be willing to say of our own Churches of Christ. “Let this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the body of Christ at large.” When that day comes   no more denominations, just the body of Christ   we will have realized the dream of our pioneers. That is who we are   or supposed to be!

 

      6.   Let us reject our radical congregationalism and become more responsibly organized for the tasks before us.

 

            We have yet to learn what Alexander Campbell taught over a century ago   that the church is more than the sum total of its congregations. No local church, nor a group of area churches, can do what the church as a whole can do. We have paid a heavy price for what we call “congregational autonomy,” given all our duplicate programs, ineffectiveness, and work left undone. Considering the restrictions we have imposed on ourselves, based on the myth that it is Biblical, it is amazing that we do as well as we do.

 

            If we were properly organized for missionary and benevolent work   with centralized ministries responsible to the congregations   the results would be remarkable. We organize for maximum results in all other areas of life   businesses, schools, government, social agencies. Only our churches are required to limp along with an incompetent polity.

 

      7.   Let us become more responsibly Biblical.

 

            This must start by correcting some fallacies that have been our undoing   beginning with the “restorationist” mentality or the patternistic method of interpretation. The myth that there is in the New Testament a golden age of pristine purity of the church that we are to “restore” in our day has had deadly consequences. Our leaders have seen that “pure church” or “the pattern” in different ways, and, by assuming that it can be only one way, they have produced faction upon faction, each claiming to be the true church built “according to the pattern.”

 

            The basic fallacy has been to make the New Testament into something that it is not. We have supposed that the New Testament produced the church, when in fact it was the church that produced the New Testament. The earliest churches could not have been built “according to the pattern” (the New Testament), for they existed for generations before there was the New Testament. Those churches were the result of the KERUGMA (the thing preached) or the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. They were guided by the DIDACHE or the teaching of the apostles, which included the teachings of Christ which they passed along. As time passed those churches had problems and needed further instruction, so the apostles and evangelists wrote letters to address those problems. After a generation or so the “gospels” were written, preserving stories about and teaching of Jesus. When these were all canonized several generations later, it came to be called the New Testament.

 

            We can say, then, that out of the experiences of the first-century community of faith   the apostolic congregations   came the New Testament. That makes it a vital witness to what the church is to be (or not to be), and therein is revealed the word of God, but this does not make it a detailed pattern for all aspects of church life for all ages to come. The New Testament is more descriptive of what the church should be (or not be), than prescriptive, as if a code of law. This is why unity is in diversity rather than in conformity. And this why the demand for conformity   interpreting the pattern my way   produces factions.

 

         Responsible interpretation, if Alexander Campbell had his way, is in a common sense approach to the Bible. That meant to him that the Bible should be read as one would read any other literature, by the rules of common sense. He proposed one rule that is particularly informing   We must come within understanding distance. He meant that we are to read with the heart as well as the head. It was the rule our Lord gave in John 7:17: “If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine.” Understanding begins with the heart’s desire.

 

            As for a practical hermeneutics, one could hardly do better than Campbell’s approach to the Bible: “Experience has taught me that to get a victory over the world, over the love of fame, and to hold in perfect contempt human honor, adulation, and popularity, will do more to make the New Testament intelligible, than all the commentators that ever wrote” (Mill. Harb, 1830, p. 138).

 

            I suggest one basic rule of interpretation, a negative one, that I call “the spirit of Christ rule.” I think it will prove to be liberating, especially for us in Churches of Christ: No. interpretation is to be accepted that runs counter to the spirit of Christ. That means that if Jesus would not believe it or accept it, we should not. We are to interpret the Bible in reference to Christ, not the other way around. The Scriptures are subject to Christ, not Christ to the Scriptures. We are not to mutilate the Lord, cutting Him down to our size, so as to make Him fit our view of Scripture.

 

            If one interprets certain Scriptures to support slavery, racism or segregation, we must reject the interpretation, however logical it may appear, for it runs counter to the spirit of Christ. Likewise, when the Bible is used to justify division among Christians, to impose a gender test in the life of the church, or to treat divorced people as less than equal, we are to resist. We have preachers who can quote verses endlessly to prove that “We are right and all others are wrong,” but is the conclusion consistent with the spirit of Christ?

 

      8.   Let us realize who the enemy is.

 

            We have fought among ourselves long enough, dividing into warring factions. We have too long declared war on “the sects” or “the denominations.” The enemy is not that other Church of Christ across town with which we have no fellowship. Nor is the enemy the Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians   not even the Catholics!

 

            If this was the mentality of Churches of Christ in our earlier history, we are not to suppose that we have it completely behind us. We are still reluctant to have anything to do with other churches. And those we still call “denominational preachers” are seldom, if ever, guests in our pulpits. We treat other churches and other Christians as if they were the enemy.

 

            Since we as Christians are at war, it is vital to know who the enemy is. The New Testament describes our enemy as “the rulers of the darkness of this age” and as “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). He or it is further described as “arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In 1 Peter 5:8 “the devil” is named as our adversary, and he is likened to a roaring lion on the prowl seeking whom he may devour.

 

            If we take our warfare too lightly, it may be because we do not realize the deadly power of the enemy. The modem church might be likened to the society lady at a garden party who was told there was a lion loose in the neighborhood. “Really?,” she said, as she took another bite of her cucumber salad. Once we take measure of our enemy in all his horrid reality, we will be more likely to circle the wagons with all other believers, including those we once supposed to be our adversaries, and fight the good fight together.

 

      9.   Let us cease shooting our own wounded.

 

            We sometimes reject our sisters and brothers in Christ when they need us most. It may be when they are going through a divorce, or when once divorced, they plan to remarry. Some have made a big issue out of “divorce and remarriage,” treating it as an unpardonable sin. They would even break up homes, causing even deeper wounds, on the pretext that the couple is “living in adultery”   even when they now have a second family and have their lives back on track!

 

            When Homer Hailey, one of my professors at ACC in the 1940’s, sought to correct such pharisaical brutality in a liberating book on the subject, they shot him, branding him as a “false teacher.” They did not hesitate to consign him in his old age to a life of rejection, even after seventy years of faithful service. As incredible as it may seem, it was seriously debated in some journals whether Homer Hailey could be “fellowshipped”   because he at last, in his old age, revealed that he held a different view on divorce and remarriage!

 

            We have been known to shoot our missionaries in the field   if they become “liberal” or depart from the party line through exposure to a larger Christian world   leaving them to get home the best they can. And many a preacher has been fired the same afternoon of the Sunday he gave that “moving” sermon!

 

            We have not been pastoral to our troubled people. A preacher with gnawing doubts has to keep them to himself. A teacher hesitates to say anything “different” in his or her class, however liberating the idea might be, as are those in the class. A sister who delights in her exciting experiences at Bible Study Fellowship is reluctant to reveal what she’s been up to. And if one is troubled about his or her sexuality   whether he or she might be gay or lesbian   it is just as well to deal with the problem alone. Like many other churches, we shoot our rejects. We have had a bad habit of neglecting the heart.

 

            Our Lord sought to redeem the wounded rather than to condemn them. He was compassionate and merciful towards the ostracized of society. He even died for them. We must learn to be like Him.  Leroy(to be continued)

 

 

 

Between Us . . .

 

            Ouida and I had a great visit to Oklahoma City in July. I did a lecture on “A ‘Walk Around’ in Restoration History” at the Christian Scholars Conference at Oklahoma Christian University. My presentation was a brief summary of our heritage based on the lives of our four founding pioneers who are honored on a memorial   called a cenotaph   that stands in the garden of the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville. These are Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott. A “walk around” the cenotaph, noting the quotation under each hero’s likeness, serves as an informative introduction to what the Restoration Movement is about. It was well received. We heard interesting lectures from others, and we saw numerous old friends and met new ones. This conference is important for Churches of Christ in that it gives scholars a chance to get together and share their research. Younger scholars, even those yet in college and seminary, have a chance to share their research with older scholars.

 

            We took buses from the conference to downtown to visit the Oklahoma City National Memorial. Since we also visited and had dinner at Bricktown, also downtown, we saw the memorial after dark as well as in daylight, which is advisable. The glow at night from the Field of Empty Chairs   one for each of the 168 who died in the bombing   enhances the gravity of the scene. Each chair has a name, and they are all different even though they appear uniform. The slight difference stands for the individuality of each person who died. The chairs of the children are smaller. The chairs are in five rows, one row for each floor of the Murrah Federal Building. They are arranged according to the floor on which the person died.

 

            The Field of Empty Chairs is where the federal building stood. They face a shallow reflective pool  only two inches deep but larger than a football field, which is located where the street once passed in front of the building. The Gates of Time   tall monumental twin structures   stand at either end of the memorial and serve as entrances. Atop one structure the time reads 9:01, atop the other 9:03.

 

            What one sees in between the Gates   the memorial grounds  reminds one of what happened in those two tragic seconds on the morning of April 19, 1995.

 

            It is a sobering experience, but the grimmest part for me was when a park ranger pointed out the spot where the bomber parked his rental truck filled with explosives. A tree grows there now, alongside the reflective pool   and the Field of Chairs. It reminds us   as does all human history   that man is his own worst enemy.

 

            I was asked by the editors of the upcoming Stone-Campbell Encyclopedia to write one of the major articles, the one on Alexander Campbell. I had already written several lesser articles, but the one on Campbell, which will be more extensive, is taking much more time. I am giving much of my summer to it. The more I research the Old Hero the more I admire him. Gen. Robert E. Lee may have overstated the case when he said if he had to choose someone from planet Earth to represent the human race on another planet, he would select Alexander Campbell. When one gets into the reformer’s life, he can see that the general had a point. He was so far beyond where most of us are! He had a way of asking, “Do we live for time, or do we live for eternity?” His life was his answer to that question.

 

 

 

            The Stone-Campbell Movement by Leroy Garrett has been out of print for several months. College Press has announced a new edition should be out by the end of October, and the price will be somewhat higher. You may reserve a copy from us.

 

            A shorter history, but one that tells the story well, especially of Churches of Christ, is Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ is $16 postpaid.

 

            Our supply of old issues of Restoration Review will soon be depleted. While they last, we can send 15 back issues   a sampling of 40 years of publication   for $8 postpaid.

 

            I am reading with great interest Making History: Ray Muncy In His Time, written by his wife Eloise and John Williams, a professor at Harding University. Ray Muncy was a preacher among Churches of Christ, a historian, and longtime professor at Harding. This is the kind of history we now need to write   what happened in the trenches among the churches, in the pews, in the homes, and in the colleges at the grass roots level, including some of our dirty laundry. It is a laughter-and-tears kind of book. 357 pp. $18 postpaid.

 

            There is evident interest in learning about Islam, considering the demand for Christ and Islam: Understanding the Faith of Muslims. It is short, but it probably tells you as much as you need to know about the Muslim faith. $6 postpaid.