MY DREAM OF THE RESTORED CHURCH
by Leroy Garrett

Man must dream before his dream can come true. Religion should be sufficiently liberal and inspirational to provide ample motivation for man’s imagination. It is as a creature of wonder that man is distinct from the animal, and it is through imaginative anticipation that man lifts himself to better ways of doing things.¹ He has the power to picture in his mind what might be. Imagination makes man a creator of ideas. He can transcend what is with a view of discovering what ought to be.²

This essay is a venture of the mind into the potential of the church of Christ on earth. It is a dream of what the kingdom of God might mean to men and women who live in times of stress. And yet it is a dream that does not overlook the human element, for even dreamers cannot expect perfection in any situation that involves the frailty of man. Neither does this dream neglect the divine element, for every dreamer in Zion must realize that God has spoken and that his word must form the basis of any imaginative picture of a better church. We agree with the psalmist that “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” The Bible cannot be improved upon, and the constitution of the kingdom of God stands inviolate. Yet man as a creative genius can so involve himself in the sacred oracles as to rise above mediocrity in religion. He can shake himself free from the shackles of traditionalism and the impediments of institutionalism and thus stand upon holy ground. Here he can envisage the tabernacle of God as it is revealed in the divine economy.

If man can improve his physical condition by probing deeper and deeper into the elements of the universe, he may be able to gain richer spiritual insight by a continual search for the kingdom of God. The wonders of the word of God may be as magnanimous and multitudinous as the wonders of the universe. Man has begun his venture into space. The possibilities are illimitable. One scientist stated recently that man’s work in outer space will someday make the present modes of communication as outdated as the Indian smoke signals now are.³ Yet all these things are by virtue of man’s imagination. The Bible is likewise the work of God. It may be that we have only begun to see its economy, for it may be as immeasurable as the universe with its billions of stars. David could say, “Thy testimonies are full of wonder,” and Paul affirmed, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”⁴

The scientist alluded to above also stated that man’s present relationship to outer space is like the relationship of an ocean fish to the world about him. The fish that can view the world only through the pale ocean waters has a very narrow conception of the nature of the world. Even should the fish grow a periscope so that he could see above water and behold the shapes and colors of the earth, his concept would still be too restricted. Man in his venture into space has thus far only managed to get a better look. He is barely above water and he hardly knows what it is all about.⁵

Could this be our relationship to the Bible? The psalmist speaks of the word of God as “the finding of great spoil.” It may be that we have hardly begun to see what the “great spoil” means to us. As Paul anticipates the conversion of the Jews he says, “If their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!”⁶ How much more the riches! Here Paul is imagining what it might mean to the world for the Jews to be converted. Think of what the Jews could do in helping us to appreciate the “great spoil” of the Old Testament!

It is surely a fact that we have much to learn regarding the nature of the church of Jesus Christ. We have long committed the sin of over-simplification. This study is an effort to complexify the situation sufficiently that we will be able to see that the restoration of New Testament Christianity is far from accomplished, especially in regards to the “spirit” of the ancient order. We hope to point out new areas of investigation and to evaluate some of our present practices.

THE NECESSITY OF DIVERSITY

If Paul could say, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit,” he could also say, “There are diversities of personalities, but the same Spirit.” God created us to be different. Just as we are different in physical makeup, no two of us being exactly alike, we are also different psychologically. Some of us are more poetic and imaginative than others of us; some are more practical and pessimistic, while others are more idealistic and sanguine. It is just as certain that we are going to think differently as it is that our physical features are different.⁷

We have erred in supposing that the united church of Christ will be composed of people who would think alike in religious matters. Consequently our plea has not been for unity but for conformity. We have sought to conform people to our own narrow interpretations rather than to unite them as the diversified body of Christ. This is partly due to a misinterpretation of such passages as 1 Cor. 1:10, where Paul urges the disciples at Corinth to “speak the same thing and be of the same mind and same judgment.” Inasmuch as Paul elsewhere in the same letter provides for diversity of expression (1 Cor. 9:4-11, 14:26-33), he could not mean that disciples are to be of the same opinion about everything. Paul explains in verse 12 what he means by insisting on agreement. The Corinthian church was split into factions, at least in sentiment, and so some were saying “1 belong to Paul” while others were crying “I belong to Cephas” or “I belong to Christ,” The “Christ party” was as wrong as the others, for they were all a plea for a party. In Moffatt’s translation of this passage he gives “Stop these party crys!” for “all of you speak the same thing,”⁸ The man who wrote Romans 14 could never have said “it is necessary that all disciples see everything alike,” A study of Romans 14 will reveal that Paul understood that there will be differences of opinion. Paul here teaches that we are to “welcome the man who is weak in faith, though not for disputes over opinions,” and “it is before his own master that he stands or falls (regarding his opinions),” When Paul says “The faith you have, keep between yourself and God” he had reference to different interpretations of scripture. Even though one brother is a vegetarian and another is carnivorous, they are to welcome each other into fellowship and not pass judgment on each other, says Paul. This being true, 1 Cor. 1:10 could not possibly be an injunction against differences of opinion. While we are to be loyal to our plea that Christ is Lord, thus avoiding party spirits and sectarian crys, we cannot expect to attain unanimity upon all matters of interpretation. If this is insisted upon, we may attain conformity, but not unity.

In my dream the disciples view diversity of interpretation as wholesome. They encourage disagreement rather than discourage it. They think it desirable that a brother think for himself and search for better and more satisfactory interpretations. Never will they needle a brother with such jabs as “Why, that’s Roman Catholicism!” or “You ought to join the sects!” In my dream a brother feels at ease with his fellow saints despite differences. He does not hesitate to express himself fully and freely, for he knows that his brethren will show forbearance regardless of how far afield he might get. This in no wise implies indifference to doctrine or an attitude of “anything goes,” but it does mean that every saint moves in an atmosphere of freedom, and he does not feel he will be “withdrawn from” if he gets off the beaten path. The saints insist that all differences be the result of sincere inquiry into the word of God, thus eliminating the sectarian spirit. An idea that grows out of a humble search for truth is worthy of unlimited forbearance, but any idea that is postulated with the intention of forming a party is essentially factious and will not be tolerated.

Unity is diverse by its very nature. The “unity of the Spirit” does not entail everyone seeing everything alike, but it implies a togetherness despite the differences. The primitive church was shockingly diverse, yet it did well in maintaining “the unity of the Spirit.” Philosophers define beauty⁹ as “unity in diversity.” This is what makes a snowfall so lovely. Every flake is different and the wintry setting is diverse, and yet there is unity in it all. A congregation has that simple beauty when it attains unity in diversity. A church can have a thousand differences within it and still be united. It is not differences that cause division. It is the party spirit.

My dream church does not believe in conformity, for this implies compliance to set patterns. This is why a creed, either written or unwritten, is ruled out. This also rules out the “kangaroo court.” Unity in Christ is one thing; conformity to clerical poppy-cock is something else. The ideal ekklesia will not have “the brother with the tape recorder” who wishes to preserve what “the digressive” has to say so that he can get him when the time comes. There will be no secret caucuses where brethren frame up on a recalcitrant. Brethren will quit crucifying each other in the name of sound doctrine.

My Utopian church will likewise see the necessity of diversity on a congregational level, realizing that it is neither possible or desirable for congregations to be alike in every respect. Even if the differences reveal that somebody is wrong, there can still be unity. One congregation may support the missionary society and use instrumental music, while the other could not conscientiously do either. One church maintains the “pastor system” and has a Sunday School organization, while another church could not possibly practice either. There may be differences even in denominational (by this I refer only to name) appellation. Some congregations may choose to use the term “Church of Christ” principally, while others use “Christian Church” or “Disciples of Christ” principally—or even “the Church of the Firstborn” or perhaps “Synagogue of the Messiah” if they are Jewish!

Not enough of us have learned that we can enjoy Christian fellowship with people who are wrong in some of their beliefs and practices. But my dream church has no difficulty in welcoming those who are wrong. Since God loved us and gave his Son for us when we were wrong, we too can embrace those who are wrong. Ignorance becomes intolerable only when it is voluntary. This does not mean that the Utopian church will not have its strong convictions to which it clings uncompromisingly. Nor does it mean that there will be no steps taken to correct error. It will surely “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” It only means that it will move within a framework of love, that it will teach the truth in a spirit of charity, and that it will not wait until a person is right on every thing before he is received into its fellowship. The saints will seek to unite themselves with him in Christ, not conform him to themselves.

WHAT NAME?

Even though naming has been a problem since Adam, I have no difficulty on this score in my dream. Any sectarian appellation will only tend to keep God’s people divided. There must be considerable flexibility here, for there is a score of scriptural terms that the restored church can use for the sake of identification. Saints of God should learn to use a denominational term (to be distinguished from a sectarian name) with meaning. They will think of themselves as members as they relate themselves to the body of Christ, and they will call themselves disciples as they think of themselves as students of the Master. They are saints in their relationship to the world and they are citizens in reference to the kingdom of God. They are children of God in the heavenly family and they are the royal priesthood in respect to the altar of God.

They may even be called presbyterian in government and methodist in function, and certainly they are baptists in that they immerse and episcopalians in that they are ruled by bishops. But no descriptive term should become a special name for the children of God. The church is certainly catholic in that it is universal in scope, but it is neither Roman or Greek Catholic. It is apostolic, but not the Apostolic Church; it is holy, but it is not the Holiness Church. It is Christ’s, but it is not the Church of Christ; it is Christian, but it is not the Christian Church. It is adventist, but it is not the Adventist Church; it is the salvation army, but not the Salvation Army Church.

My dream church has no name at all, which leaves it free to use any and all meaningful descriptive terms that are found in the New Testament. Thus a dividing wedge is removed and unity is brought a step nearer.

Yet we must be realistic. What is one to say when he is asked about his church affiliation? In whose account are the deacons to deposit the money at the local bank? In what name will property be held in trust? These questions arose in a meeting of a newly formed congregation that I attended recently. These brethren saw a difference between a name that identifies a group with a particular sectarian persuasion and one that describes the nature of the congregation and the location of its place of meeting. After some discussion this group decided to identify their building as the Westside Christian Chapel, while they themselves would be called disciples, a congregation of Christians, and any or all other scriptural terms. It was further suggested that in their advertising they would employ such language as “A Congregation of the Restoration Movement,” which would explain its function in respect to other Christian, communities.

Since this matter is within the area of expediency there can be many different ways of identifying the Lord’s work in a community. The synagogues of the New Testament period may be suggestive along this line. The nature of the congregation (that is, racial or geographic peculiarities) would often determine its name. In Acts 6:9 synagogues in Jerusalem are referred to as having such names as the synagogue of the Freedmen, synagogue of the Cyrenians, and the synagogue of the Alexandrians. The first one was a congregation made up principally of Jews who had won their freedom from slavery, while the other two were called after the geographic locations from which the people came. These were not official names in the sense that Baptist or Methodist are, for they were probably no more than nicknames given for the purpose of distinguishing one group from another.¹⁰

It is likely that those synagogues that accepted Christianity were dubbed “the synagogue of the Messiah,” for James 2:2 indicates that believing Jews continued to use the term synagogue and Acts 28:22 shows that the Christian movement was at first thought of as within the milieu of Judaism.¹¹ That Acts 28:22 speaks of the believers as a ‘sect” (compare Acts 24:5 where it reads “sect of the Nazarenes”) does not necessarily imply that the Jews used the term opprobriously. It would mean simply a part of Judaism. The scrolls from the Dead Sea show us that there were many sects within first century Judaism, and so Christianity, before it became independent, was considered one of them.¹² If Tertullian’s reference to Paul as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” is reproachful as it seems to be, it is because Christianity had become troublesome, and not because it was a sect.

Speaking of nicknames for a church or synagogue, it is probable that “Christian” was first given as a nickname; and maybe as a term of reproach, but not necessarily.¹³ At least we know that no believer was called a Christian before the faith reached Antioch, where “the disciples were first called Christians,” The synagogue of the Messiah in Jerusalem did not have a “Christian” in it! Stephen and James died without ever hearing the term! The believers were called disciples long before they were called Christians. Alexander Campbell, who spent much time debating this question of the name with Barton W. Stone and other restorationists, preferred the term disciple, while Stone insisted upon Christian. This explains why there were two movements in the early days of the Restoration, one called “Christians” and the other “Disciples,” While Campbell believed that “Christian” was a nickname rather than God-given, he based his contention on the idea that “disciple” is a humbler term and more descriptive of, the man who is searching for the truth.¹⁴

That the term “Christian” may be a nickname in no wise implies that it is not a meaningful term. The New Testament and early Christian literature generally indicates that the name was accepted by the believers. One passage mentions that they “glorified God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16). My point is that this name cannot be made compulsory of all those who accept the Lord. The Jews, for instance, might prefer to use “Messianists” rather than “Christians,” which is essentially a Greek term. Jews would not have to surrender their Jewishness in becoming believers. It is significant that the Greek name “Christian” came only after the movement left its Jewish home and became Hellenistic.¹⁵ A Jewish synagogue today would not have to become a “Christian church” in order to be faithful to the New Covenant scriptures.¹⁶ It could simply become “a synagogue of the Messiah” and its members would continue to be saints or children of God. If they chose to use a term equivalent to “Christian” and yet continue to preserve their Jewishness, which they would have the right to do, then they could call themselves “Messianists”—and instead of “Christianity” (a term that they might justly object to) they might speak of their work of the Lord as “Messianic Judaism!”

I might conclude this part of my dream by stating that a simple way of naming our congregations would be by location, such as “Riverside Congregation” or “Maplewood Assembly” or “Bethany Chapel.” In my hometown of Jacksonville a Methodist congregation is commonly referred to as “Grace Church” while another is called “Centenary Church,” This is not sectarian nor divisive as is the name Methodist. While I have in a note offered some objection to the term “church,” I can otherwise refer to such a practice as part of a dream come true.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING

The design of the meetinghouse is an important aspect of Restoration, for the building, like a family dwelling, reflects the nature of the work that goes on there and the attitude of those who worship there. It is folly to suppose that the saints need no place of meeting, that they need only a rented hall or space in some private home. It is true that the New Testament speaks often of “the church in your house,” but there are good reasons why the primitive saints did not erect houses for public meetings. One reason was persecution, which made impossible the erection of buildings; another was poverty. Still another reason may have been that they believed the world would soon come to an end and that the Lord would soon return to claim his own. Buildings began to appear once it became apparent that the world order had some permanency and when the yoke of Roman persecution was lifted.¹⁷

One of the problems with earlier Restoration efforts in America was the laxness of disciples in erecting adequate meetinghouses. The revolutionary spirit of the times led many to conclude that houses were not necessary, or at least they felt it was in order to be as indifferent to buildings as were the New Testament saints. In his earlier travels among newly-formed disciple congregations, Alexander Campbell often complained that so little progress was being made in erecting comfortable and commodious buildings. It was necessary that most of his addresses be given in borrowed buildings.

As late as 1834 he wrote the following concerning meeting-houses:

It cannot be doubted by those who reflect upon all that operates upon the human mind, that convenient and comfortable houses for the public worship of Christian congregations, and for the accommodation of those who may be induced to visit their assemblies, is as necessary as private dwellings for our families and friends.

He who wishes to enjoy domestic life and the sweets of social intercourse, provides himself, if in his power, with a house sufficiently commodious. If congregations wish to prosper and increase, they must have some place in which to assemble, and to which to invite those whom they desire to see partakers of the blessings and honors of the family of God.

We must erect a stand on which to place the lamp, if we would have ourselves or others to enjoy its light. We must not complain that our worship is not attended, nor our discourses and admonitions heard, if there be no provision for hearers or attendants. Places of meeting are just as necessary as paper and ink for the spread of truth. But as this is almost universally admitted, we proceed to ask why is it that Christians are so remiss in contributing for this good work?¹⁸

After over a century of disciple history the problem of meeting-houses has changed radically. We are no longer remiss in erecting buildings; yea, we sometimes build a house before we have a congregation! The problem now is erecting buildings that are out of character with the spirit of Restoration. My dream congregation has a building that is in harmony with “the meekness and gentleness” of the Christian profession and which is conducive to an active program of a priestly congregation. I shall spell out the character of such a building.

1. It should be simple. The New Testament warns us against those “who want to make a good showing in the flesh” (Gal. 6:12) . Pride takes its toll in modern concepts of “church architecture.” The well-dressed person is one who is so clothed that he does not call attention to himself. He is not over-dressed nor under-dressed, but dressed with dignity and simplicity. Once you are away from such a person you probably could not recall the manner of his dress. So it is with a church house. It serves its purpose as a house and not as a show piece or as the latest word in architecture. It does not call attention to itself, unless it be for its neatness and cleanliness. It is neither crude nor ostentatious. Its simplicity discourages pride, its dignity encourages orderliness.

2. It should be commodious, conveniently located, and of moderate cost. A congregation should form some idea of how large it wants to grow. Once it reaches this size, plans can be laid for the starting of another congregation. It is wasteful to tear down a durable building so as to erect a larger one. Let a church erect a permanent, moderately priced building of simple construction that will meet its needs for generations. Once the group is too large for that building, let them swarm and start another congregation. While this cannot be made an arbitrary rule, it should be more generally practiced than it is. My dream church has a rather small building.

I cannot envisage a truly restored congregation as being very large. I will venture to say that no congregation of the Restoration Movement should permit itself to exceed two hundred members. I will give reasons for this later in my dream. So I would suggest that a new congregation think of itself as eventually growing to an assembly of two hundred persons (even this may be too large), and they can plan their building accordingly, with no idea of ever building another one. It should be commodious, which will mean that some room will be reserved for visitors and special occasions. It will be durable, which means that the money that ordinarily goes into fragile adornments will be used for deeper foundation and stouter materials.

Since Alexander Campbell was so conscious of the role of the building in the life of the ekklesia, it might be well to quote from him on this point.

It is most devoutly to be wished that all who plead for reformation would carry out their principles in the plainness, convenience, and cheapness of the buildings which they erect for the assemblies of Christians. No greater satire could be inscribed on marble against the religion of Jesus Christ, than are many of the houses called churches, whenever the people have the means of gratifying the spirit which is in them.

There is no difference between the Baptists and Other sects in this particular. Opulent communities among them have stately edifices, with lofty steeples and ponderous bells . . .

Large, convenient, and permanent pauses may be built for generally less than half the sum usually expended on the same number of square feet. The Quakers are more exemplary in this matter than any other sect. But even their plan could still be improved.

Let there be only a regard to convenience and durability; let all that is merely to gratify the lusts of the eye and the pride of life be left to them who seek to gain influence on the children of the flesh by reducing Christianity to the taste and fashion of this world, and we can build two, three, and sometimes four meeting houses for the price of one of the same dimensions . . ..

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 anything in it, reproach our profession.¹⁹

3. It should be consistent with the principles of Restoration. This will make the building of my dream church remarkably different from those of other churches. There will be no pulpit, for one principle of Restoration is the priesthood of all believers. Once all distinction between clergy and laity is erased, there will be no place for the “sacred desk” reserved for a professional minister. The assembly room will have the atmosphere of a large living room in a private home. There will be a table for the Lord’s supper, around which at least two elders will be seated who will direct the service. The congregation will be seated informally in comfortable chairs very much like those found in the average home. There will be no pews and no such seating arrangement as is common in churches and theaters. The saints will be facing each other within a circle or semi-circle with the Lord’s table at the center.²⁰

This will encourage each saint to share in “the great conversation” of scriptural themes introduced by the elders or by some brother who is selected to lead the discussion. There will be no such thing as “preaching a sermon” in my dream church. Even “making a talk” will be a thing of the past. After all, brethren do not “make a talk” to each other in the privacy of their homes, but they rather share ideas together in a conversational way. In my dream congregation, therefore, the saints will assemble to break bread and to edify each other in an atmosphere that is conducive to easiness of self-expression. There is no artificiality or meaningless ritual. It has qualities of a family gathering for worship, where each one feels free to take part. This is another reason why the congregation must be kept small.

There will be the special occasions, of course, when a lecture will be given or when the gospel will be preached. Folding chairs will be set up and a lectern will be provided for such occasions. When one man is addressing a large group at some length, it is expedient to arrange the seating in the traditional style; but when the saints have assembled to edify each other, a more informal arrangement is in order. So my dream building will be flexible enough to suit varying conditions, thus making a valued distinction between an assembly of saints for worship and a public gathering for an evangelistic service.²¹

Sliding partitions in the main assembly room will provide smaller rooms for a library, counseling, small classes, and workshops. The basement will provide for further facilities, including sleeping quarters for sojourners. There will be a kitchen and social room, and these will be used very often, preferably every day and night by some group within the congregation. Love feasts will be a regular practice.²² Neighbors will be frequent visitors. Brethren will spend much time with each other in social intercourse. Biblical problems will often be discussed over a cup of tea. It will be a meeting place for the young people. Mothers will try to get away from domestic duties to spend time with each other in the congregation’s library.

An inexpensive baptistry will be placed in a small room in the basement, for most immersing would be performed privately and at odd times of the week. It could be more devotional and more easily accompanied by prayer and confession of sin if it were removed from the public eye.²³ Any member of the congregation might immerse a believer at any time, so the baptistry would be arranged so that this could be done easily and privately.

ORGANIZATION AND WORK

The work will be well organized with each member accepting his share of responsibility. One talented brother would serve as secretary to the congregation, and his responsibility would include keeping the archives. He would keep an exact record of business meetings, and he would maintain a history of the congregation. The history would be an exact account of the origin of the congregation, its charter members, and the vicissitudes through which it passes. A record will be kept of each member, including the date of his immersion, where he comes from or where he moves to, and whether he is in good standing. The archivist would preserve a copy of all documents, tracts, letters, and advertisements issued by the congregation through the years.²⁴

The ekklesia would have both deacons and deaconesses as the New Testament provides for in 1 Timothy 3 and 5. These would watch out for the temporal needs of the congregation. They would be especially solicitous of the poor and the shut-ins. It would be their obligation to be alert to any good deeds the church might do in the community-at-large in a humanitarian way. Both male and female deacons will direct workshops in which clothes are mended, furniture repaired, and things are made for distribution among the needy. They will maintain a depository of food and clothes to be distributed to the poor. Such workshops will give many in the congregation an opportunity to share in a different kind of mutual ministry.

The female deacons (or deaconesses) will be responsible for work among women and the aged where the peculiar talents of a woman is most needed. One could have regular appointments at homes for the aged and convalescent homes where she would busy herself with reading to the near-blind and writing letters for those too aged to write for themselves. Another deaconess could be supported in maintaining a home for orphans, while still another would conduct a home of hospitality for Christian young ladies who are away from home going to college or working.²⁵

All members would be engaged in some type of ministry, each according to his ability (Rom. 12:6-8). Some will be especially devoted to youth work; others will choose to minister the word to those in hospitals. But all such work will be well organized so that there will be a minimum of lost motion and overlapping.

The church will encourage each to develop according to his ability. Some will be trained as evangelists and others as elders; still others will seek the office of teacher (Eph. 4:11-12). There will be special studies for this purpose. The ekklesia will in fact be a school. Its presbyters themselves will be competent instructors (1 Tim. 3:2), and they, along with other teachers (1 Cor. 12:28), would conduct a “church school” that would offer anything a young evangelist or Christian worker would need. This could include Greek, Hebrew, speech, church history, archaeology, religious philosophy, as well as the Bible or anything else that would lend to the special preparation of any scriptural work. But there will be no professional clergy.²⁶

Yet the leaders of the congregation would encourage young men and women to get as good an education as each could afford in the public schools and in the colleges. But there would be no effort to establish schools for the express purpose of training people for offices within the ekklesia. My dream church honors the New Testament principle of “There is but one body” (Eph. 4:4), so it would have no sympathy with any idea of creating other institutions to do the work God has given to the body of Christ. While the elders would be friends to all educational institutions and encourage their patron age, they themselves would assume the task of providing spiritual training of the flock. (Acts 20:28) .

All the activity would be under the oversight of the elders or bishops of the congregation (1 Pet. 5:2). Another reason for a small congregation is that it makes it possible for the elders to know each sheep by name (John 10:3). The saints will respect the elders for their work sake (1 Thess. 5:12). There will be no “clergyman” or “resident minister” around to eclipse them in their rightful place of dignity in the congregation. The elders might even be financially remunerated for their labor (1 Tim. 5:17) .²⁷

ATTITUDE OF THE SAINTS

The ekklesia is a respected group within the life of the community. They are looked upon as part of the answer rather than part of the problem. The saints themselves have a wholesome attitude toward the community and the world. They even honor the rights of the infidel, perhaps to the point of paying taxes on their tax-free property, acknowledging that the infidel should not be asked to support religious institutions.²⁸

My dream saints cooperate in the affairs of state. They pay taxes, vote, enter military service, serve on school boards, hold public office, and donate to the Red Cross, and yet they are kindly toward their brethren who would object to these things.

They are rather liberal in matters involving cooperation. They are enthusiastic about ecumenicity and are sympathetic with church unions and councils, and they might even send a “layman” to a meeting of a ministerial association. While they may be reticent to align themselves with such organizations as the National Council of Churches of Christ, their attitude is nonetheless sympathetic and positive.²⁹ They will cooperate to the straining point of their scruples, and they will not be separatists. They will have a good attitude toward other churches, acknowledging the good they do in the world and recognizing the spirituality of many of their members. They will invite the clergy into their assembly to address them on occasions, and they will warmly welcome any visitor to share in their discussions. The saints will feel free to attend other churches and, insofar as their consciences permit (there would be differences here) they would partake of the worship of these churches.³⁰

In all this they would be adamant and militant about their own convictions and they would diligently propagandize their message of New Testament Christianity. But they will not be arbitrary or dogmatic. They will oppose false doctrine, condemn error, and warn of the wrath to come, but they will not act as if they were glad that everybody will go to hell but themselves. They will be a fellowship of love, and this love will be evident even to those who differ with them the most. They will practice the fine art of going the second mile and of doing some things that they do not particularly want to do. They will be idealistic but not impractical. They will build bridges of understanding between themselves and others. They will be able to listen to a Roman Catholic priest with a measure of objectivity and to pray fervently for the Methodist pastor who lives across the street. They can enter into a constructive conversation with an Adventist without feeling a compulsion to crawl him on points of difference. In other words the saints of my dream church have some measure of emotional maturity.

They love the simple life. Their homes are modest. Their conversation is not everlastingly upon dress, fashion, houses, money, TV, and high prices. They learn to discuss the things that matter most. They are philosophers in that they are in constant search for the good life. They know the meaning of prayer. They learn that giving is a Christian grace, and the first gift they lay upon the altar of faith is themselves.

I awake from my dream to say that ideas are those little things that will not work unless we work them!³¹

^{__________________}

Leroy Garrett is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at MacMurray College, Jacksonville, Illinois.