No. 58. February 2003

 

MY TESTAMENT OF FAITH

 

         I was impressed that when William Barclay, one of my favorite writers as well as one of my favorite people, did his A Spiritual Autobiography (1975). he included a “Testament of Faith.” That statement about what he believed about various subjects was an informative supplement to his life story. It encouraged me to do something similar in that it might help my readers to better understand where I am coming from in my life story. These are hardly more than vignettes on subjects that could run volumes, but sometimes   as Shakespeare reminds us   “brevity is the soul of wit.”

 

         God. I often told my students how impressed I am by the teleological argument   the argument from design   for the existence of God. How can there be design without a Designer, a watch without a Watchmaker? How can there be intelligence without a higher Intelligence? It is so convincing to me that I marvel how anyone can reject it. And yet I do not try to prove the existence of God. The affirmation that God exists is an axiom that one accepts or rejects. It can be neither proved nor disproved. If it could be proved. it would be a matter of science rather than religion. We believe   based upon what we see as persuasive evidence   what we cannot scientifically prove. Jesus himself is our trusted witness. He never tried to prove the existence of God. He accepted it as a given, as an axiom. Jesus not only believed in God, but referred to Him as “Abba, Father”   in the dearest of terms. Even though He is Creator and Ruler of the universe, He is our dear heavenly Father, who is abundant in mercy and eager to forgive.

 

         Christ. I am awed that while we cannot see God we see in Jesus Christ the “express image of His person” and “the image of the invisible God.” He is the interpreter (exegete) of God (John 1: 18), and when we see Him we see what God is like (John 14:9). The humanity of Jesus is as relevant as his divinity. He was “manifest in the flesh”   becoming a human being like us   with all the weaknesses of humanity, except for sin itself. He was tempted in all points as ourselves. He feels our pain as well as our joy. He is our friend and companion as well as our Lord and Savior. God is in Him, reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). I join Paul in exulting: ‘Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift” (2 Corinthians 9:15).

 

         Holy Spirit. While I do not use such language as “the trinity” or “triune God”   which are not Biblical terms   I have no problem accepting whatever the Scriptures say about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the Helper or Comforter that God gave to take Jesus’ place when He left earth for heaven   a missionary to the church (John 14:6). He dwells within us, bearing witness with our spirit that we are God’s children, and the Spirit helps us in our weaknesses, even making intercession for us (Romans 8:9,16,26). He thus helps us to worship God and Christ. The Spirit is given as a “guarantee” that our earthly bodies will one day take on heavenly glory (2 Corinthians 5:5). While some hymns would have us do so. I do not praise the Spirit or pray to the Spirit. I worship only God and Christ through the Spirit, which is what I understand the Scriptures to teach.

 

         Church. I believe in the church as family, community, and congregation. It is the community of faith both in heaven and on earth. The church is a social entity, a body, and we are “members one of another.” I disagree with those who go it alone and are a “church” unto themselves. We are to be in fellowship with “the whole family in heaven and on earth” (Ephesians 3:15). With Thomas Campbell I believe the church is essentially, intentionally. and constitutionally one   a unity that is real even if not always realized. It is holy, apostolic, and catholic   as the ancients confessed. I accept all who are “in Christ” as making up the church   not because of, but in spite of, sectarian or denominational affiliation.

 

         Bible. I view the Bible as Holy Scripture.  the term Jesus used   rather than as the word of God, for only our Lord is ultimately “the Word of God” (Revelation 19:13). God speaks through Scripture, though some Scripture is not His word. But where God does speak through Scripture, it can be called the written word of God. Sometimes, as in most of the Psalms and much of Job, it is man’ s word   man speaking to God   not God speaking to man. But it is still Scripture, and it informs us. The Bible is a record of God’s disclosure of Himself through mighty deeds toward the redemption of humankind   what He says and does (facts). The Bible is also a record of the human response to that revelation. While I believe in the reliability and integrity of Scripture   and in its inspiration   in that it adequately conveys what God intends, I do not believe in its inerrancy, a claim that it does not make for itself. I also believe that modern Biblical research is useful  if not necessary   to understanding the nature of Scripture. I am not, therefore, a fundamentalist.

 

         Faith. One of the great contributions of our Restoration pioneers was the proposition that faith is personal rather than doctrinal-centered in the Person of Christ. “Faithfulness” is not to be measured by loyalty to creeds and dogmas   however important these may be   but by fidelity to Jesus as Lord. One might be sincerely mistaken in doctrine, but right in his relationship to Christ. In a universal sense faith is having a heart for God, and the Bible teaches that such faith reaches beyond Biblical revelation, as is evident in such “believers” as Abram, Rahab, the Ethiopian nobleman, Cornelius. It is this “spirit of faith” that justifies. While it is true that faith is based on testimony, as our pioneers insisted, we are to realize, as they did, that God speaks to us through three books. not just one. He reveals himself through the book of nature and the book of human nature, as well as through the book of Holy Scripture.

 

         Baptism. It is tragic   and inexcusable   that in the history of the church baptism has become the water that divides. Baptism may well be the most beautiful and meaningful of all God’s ordinances in that it is a reenactment of the gospel itself  death, burial, and resurrection. It is a beatific metaphor in that in it the believer is buried with Christ in the likeness of His death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection. It is God’s work of grace in that it is something God does to us rather than something we do ourselves   the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11-12). While to me the design of baptism appears in Scripture to be clearly connected to salvation (Mark 16:16), forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), putting on Christ (Galatians 3:27), and the answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21), I must   due to the long history of confusion on the subject   be tolerant of divergent views. I agree with Alexander Campbell that we cannot make our position on baptism a test of fellowship.

 

         Unity. The oneness of the church has long been my passion, and I have grown in my understanding of it. The principle that most impresses me is that unity is not ours to create   whether in unity meetings or ecumenical research   but it is God’s to give. It is a gift to be received, not a work to be accomplished. We are to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), not to create it. Love and forbearance are the means of receiving the gift. We unite upon the center who is Christ   allowing for differences on marginal issues. The old slogan, handed down from the Protestant Reformation, and adopted by our own Movement, says it well: “In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love.”

 

         Human nature. I agree with Reinhold Niebuhr that the human being is “a strange mixture of good and evil,” and that the direction one’s life takes toward good or evil depends on the circumstance of birth and opportunity, especially education. We are fallen beings with a propensity towards evil, but there is also something of God in us all. We are not wholly corrupt. We have capacity for philanthropy and decency. Even when Jesus spoke of us as “you being evil,” He at the same time recognized that we “give good gifts” (Luke 11:13). He also spoke of the “honest and good heart” and He saw noble impulses in the prodigal son in the pig pen. But that we are sinners in need of redemption is apparent enough. I suspect it is true that we sin because we are sinners, and not sinners because we sin.

 

         World. We are in the world but not of it. We are here to bless the world by being the light of the world and the salt of the earth. The idea of “holy worldliness” is meaningful to me. In the sense that our mission is its redemption, we are to love the world, like God does. The world is interesting and challenging   calling us to greatness in service   but we are never to forget that we are pilgrims passing through. We look for that city whose builder and maker is God. When we leave planet earth we do not leave home, we go home.

 

         Hermeneutics. In our passion for “a new hermeneutics,” we may make it harder than it is, and yet I realize that Biblical interpretation is not all that easy. But surely Paul (as in Ephesians 3:4) and John (as in John 20:31) wrote so as to be understood. There is virtue in Alexander Campbell’s “common sense” method: “When I at last took the naked text and read it with common sense, the Bible became a new book to me.” I like his rule, “We must come within understanding distance”   which is to say that heart as well as head is involved in making sense of the Bible. One of my rules is that all Scripture must be interpreted in reference to the spirit of Christ. To put it another way, our Lord is Himself the interpreter of Scripture.

 

         Human Suffering. There appears to be no satisfactory answer to “How could a loving and powerful God have been at Auschwitz without preventing Auschwitz?” Just as God is incomprehensible, so is meaningless suffering   particularly the suffering of the innocent. We can only endure it with trust and courage. If there is an answer it is that Friday (suffering) is followed by Sunday (victory). In the end God wins   and He will be there for us   just as He is now with us in our suffering. The question should not be Why do we suffer? but rather How are we to respond to suffering?

 

         Ethics. I believe in the ethics of virtue   the classical virtues (courage, generosity, honesty, loyalty), and especially the Christian virtues (love, mercy, forgiveness, self-denial). It means to take seriously the dignity of all persons   irrespective of color, race, or station in life. But not taking oneself too seriously! A sense of humor is also a virtue. Intelligence itself is not a virtue, for the most wicked may be intelligent. But wisdom is a virtue, and wisdom begins with reverence for God and truth. The wise person is one who, like Socrates, realizes his ignorance and is on a continual quest of truth. The essence of “doing right” is embodied in the Golden Rule, which is found in one way or another in all the great religions   a starting point for world peace and unity.

 

         Money. I have sought to follow these “down home” rules   live simply, live within one’s means, be frugal, stay out of debt, give money away. I am convinced that the money one gives away is the money best spent. Money and things are not to possess us; we are to possess them. What wealth we have is from God   as stewards (a great word!) we are to use what is God’s to alleviate human suffering. I like the idea of Christians dying broke   by giving their money away beforehand.

 

         Work. I see work as basic to life; it gives meaning to life. That is why when I can no longer be busy at something constructive I want to be taken. Since work is inherent to life, I believe it is eternal. He who sits upon the throne has promised He will make all things new. This surely includes work   new heavenly work, perhaps on distant planets. This is why retirement can be a change of pace, but not a cessation of meaningful employment. I have been especially blessed in that for much of my life I’ve been paid for what I would have done without pay.

 

         The Living of These Days. Alexander Campbell got it right: “We live not for time but for eternity,” except that I would put it: “We live in time in view of eternity.” Our time on planet earth is only part of God’s plan for us. We are being made ready for the Main Event   or as one poet put it, life in this world is “a vale of soul-making.” That is why we must live precipitously. For the sake of truth, freedom, and justice we must be willing to stand in the gap and get our nose blooded.

 

         God’s Tomorrow. I believe in a tomorrow   God’s tomorrow. There will be a “new earth”   which may well be heaven’s capital (Revelation 21:1-3)   as well as “new heavens,” the rest of heaven. We will have new names, new bodies   like unto Christ’s body   new tenantries, new employment. Like angels, we will move about the heavenly universe   in service to God   instantaneously. We now see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face. “0 the depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 1 1:33)

 

         (This will appear as an addendum in A Lover’s Quarrel: My Pilgrimage of Freedom in Churches of Christ by Leroy Garrett. To order the book see the last page of this newsletter.)

 

 

 

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ON MEETING-HOUSES

 

         If we date the beginning of the Campbell movement with the publication of Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address in 1809, which is common, then we can say it did not have church buildings of its own for some two decades. The movement was first identified with the Baptists   “Reformed Baptists” they were called   and they used Baptist church buildings. Once the movement separated from the Baptists in 1829, it inherited some buildings from the Baptists, which became Disciples of Christ. By the early 1830s they were erecting buildings of their own, which they called meeting-houses, the term preferred by , Alexander Campbell.

 

         Early on, by 1832, Alexander Campbell began to spell out what he deemed to be the proper makeup of a meeting-house. He had no model to draw upon from other churches   he in fact disapproved of their edifices   unless it was the meeting-houses of the Quakers, which he found “more exemplary in this manner than any other sect.”

 

         But he had his own ideas   drawn from years of speaking in buildings he considered unacceptable   as to what would make a house of worship consistent with his plea for reformation. “It is most devoutly to be wished,” he wrote in 1832, “that all who plead for reformation would carry out their principles in the plainness, convenience, and cheapness of the building which they erect for the assemblies of Christians.” He wrote of the satire upon the Christian faith that is inscribed in the marble of many buildings called “churches.” He was careful to call his people’s buildings “meeting-houses,” not “churches.”

 

         He emphasized economy: “Large, convenient, and permanent houses can be builded for generally less than half the sum expended on the same number of square feet.” He insisted that his people could build two, three, and sometimes four meeting-houses for what it costs to build one edifice by those who build “to satisty the lusts of the eye and the pride of life.” While he held that buildings of their own were necessary, “but for the sake of the humble founder of this our religion, and the author of our hope before God, let not the walls of the house, nor any thing in it, reproach our profession.”

 

         By 1834 he was insistent that his people have houses of worship of their own: “We must erect a stand on which to place the lamp, If we would have ourselves or others to enjoy its light.” It was “false logic,” he claimed, “to refuse the God of heaven the honor of a place of meeting for his praise, because Pagans have reared temples to idols.”

 

         By now he was more detailed about “the mode or style in which Christian synagogues should be erected,” He thought stately edifices with tall steeples, lofty pulpits, and magnificent galleries were in poor taste. He laid out a rule: “A Christian meeting-house ought to be humble, commodious, and free from all the splendor of this vain and sinful world.”

 

         He specified that “It should be a one-story house, without steeple, galleries, or pulpit. The floor should descend one foot for every eight or ten feet from the entrance to the front. The Lord’s table and seats for the elders are to be down front, opposite from the entrance. He may have called for this plan because meeting-houses in those days were often entered by doors on either side of the pulpit. Late-comers would have to walk right by or in front of the speaker!

 

         He wanted the Lord’s table and the speaker’s stand to be “on the lowest part of the floor, visible to every eye in the house.” This, he said, would make for both better speaking and hearing.

 

         Surprisingly, he called for separate seating for the congregation and what he called “auditors.”

 

         The congregation was to sit contiguous to the elders and the Lord’s table, while auditors or visitors would be seated behind them. They are to be separated by a rail or gate in the aisle. Members of the congregation would pass through the gate into the area provided for believers, leaving visitors (presumably unbelievers) to sit in the section provided for them. He allowed that as the congregation grew in size, the aisle gate would be moved back, allowing for more room.

 

         He saw this arrangement   where each person knows his proper place to sit   as a matter of common sense. It also contributes to the edification and comfort of the congregation, he allowed.

 

         While Campbell does not say so, it is implied that if a visitor was a baptized believer he or she would sit with the congregation. And it may be implied that the Lord’s supper would be served only, to those seated in the baptized (by immersion?) section. This touches on the issue of “open” or “closed” Communion. While Campbell appeared to be uncomfortable with “open” Communion, his followers were never of one mind on the issue. The practice of “We neither invite nor debar”   which was in essence “open” Communion   seemed in time to prevail.

 

         It is interesting that while there is little evidence that Campbell’s American churches followed his plan of segregated seating, it did become the practice   and continues to be the practice   in some British churches. They may not use an aisle gate, but a visitor will be kindly asked if he or she is an immersed believer. If the answer is no, that person will be seated in a separate section, and is not served the Lord’s supper.

 

         In yet another essay Campbell expressed dismay that communicants at the Lord’s table could be found dispersed about the room, seated separately as if strangers to each other. He lamented: “Even at the Lord’s table brethren sit, as at a common levee, dispersed over the whole house, and separated as aliens, as though they were determined to obliterate every appearance of brotherhood or solemnity while partaking of the memorials of or Saviour’s broken body and shed blood. Is this respectful to their Lord’?” If the church is God’s family, then the sisters and brothers should sit together around the Lord’s table.

 

         This is in essence Campbell’s view of what a meeting-house should be. It is the gathering place of the family of God   with room allowed for such visitors as may be present   and it should be consistent with the simplicity of the Christian profession, He did not want those “splendid, rich, and gorgeous things, called Temples and Cathedrals, fitted up in all the vanity and pride of life.” but neither did he want a house that was “open, leaky, tottering, windowless, stoveless, wooden.” He questioned the sincerity and spirituality of disciples who live in “comfortable mansions” and “princely dwellings” and are content to gather in the name of the meek and lowly Jesus in “unsightly domiciles” that are “dilapidated, cheerless, cold, and ruined places.” He argued that “our houses for worship” should be as “comfortable places of meeting” as are the private dwellings of the average class that frequents them.

 

         It is interesting that Campbell never criticized stained glass. Lofty steeples, yes; mahogany pulpits, yes; stately columns, yes; but not stained glass. One is left to wonder if he might have had a place for stained glass in his “comfortable, commodious” meeting-houses. After all, stained glass honored the church’s sacred dead and great Biblical epics. Neither did he reject the use of the Cross as a symbol either in or without the building,

 

         It was another generation before Campbell’s people had more stately buildings, not all that different from other denominations, and with Cross and stained glass. They were often the first to build an edifice on courthouse squares (or near the square) all across the mid-west But they generally preserved something of the simplicity preferred by Campbell.   Leroy

 

 

 

Between Us . . .

 

         There will be two more issues of this newsletter, then we’ll call it quits. We will, however, do something on the Internet, which we’ll say more about later. After sending out either a journal or a newsletter for a half century, it will take some getting used to having all that extra time. But I plan to keep on writing, which is more fun the older one gets. When Marvin Phillips, one of our dynamic preachers, recently conducted a seminar at our congregation, I told him I was now 84. He responded, “Well, that’s better than being old!”

 

         I announced in our last newsletter that I had finished my autobiography, A Lover’s Quarrel: My Pilgrimage of Freedom in Churches of Christ, and that I had submitted it for publication. I invited you to order it in advance, offering a pre-publication 20% discount off retail price. I can now tell you that it will be published by the ACU Press in the not-too-distant future. We urge you to place your order with us forthwith. Send no money. You will be billed when the book is sent. and if you order from us now you will be given a 20% discount off what will be a moderate retail price.

 

         Some of the chapter titles might entice you: Growing Up In Dallas: My First Love; A Banner Year At Freed-Hardeman; With Presbyterians At Princeton; With Unitarians At Harvard; Teaching All Blacks and All Women; My Stone-Campbell Heritage; Becoming An Editor And Landing In Jail; My Unity-In-Diversity Heresy; When Brethren And Enemies Are The Same. Ouida thought maybe I should not include the last chapter listed. She feared it might be a little much for the readers. While I trusted her judgment, we agreed to let Dr. Wayne Newland, my insightful adviser on the project, to decide for us. I told him of Ouida’s misgivings. He thought the chapter should be included in that it helps to tell the story. There are 19 chapters and two addenda. The addenda have appeared in this and the previous two newsletters.

 

         If you wish the book and have a computer, please place your order by e-mail. That way we can easily move your name to the appropriate list in our computer. Our e-mail address is below. Rut it is OK to order by mail. Either way, be sure to include your mailing address.

 

         In recent months we have been busy around home. At our home congregation I helped take a class through Revelation, and I will soon begin a study of Daniel. We’ve had appointments at the Rolling Hills Church of Christ in Desota, where I once more did my dramatization of Raccoon John Smith, and the Park Hill Church in Fort Worth.

 

 

 

         My history book, The Stone-Campbell Movement, is back in print, albeit at a somewhat higher price, But it is handsomely done, and as prices are for 573-page books these days, we believe it is worth the $35, postpaid, that we have to charge, which is below retail price.

 

 

 

         Carl Ketcherside’s The Twisted Scriptures may not be in print much longer. We can send you a copy for $9.00 postpaid. Our Heritage in Unity and Fellowship, edited by Cecil Hook, contains 51 essays by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, is available at $12 postpaid.

 

 

         This is a good time to get acquainted with the Muslim faith, We recommend Christ and Islam: Understanding the Faith of the Muslims. $6.00 postpaid.