THE
CHURCH OF GOD’S CHOICE
In a
recent issue of a weekly journal published by the “Church of
Christ” wing of our great disciple brotherhood there appeared a
well-written poem entitled The Church of His Choice. The poem
describes the futility of the doctrines of men and points out that he
who searches the Bible can discover for himself the true church. The
contrast is drawn between the church of man’s choice and the
church of God’s choice. The poem closes with these words:
Its members are those
Who believe He arose,
Who repent of their wickedness done;
And next, we must stress,
“With the mouth” they confess
That Jesus, the Christ, is God’s Son.
Into Him they’re baptized,
From the waters they rise
In newness of life to rejoice.
And these are the souls
Who have left earthly goals
To belong
to the church of God’s choice.
This poem
illustrates how the church has been made a vital part of the gospel
of Christ by modern disciples. We forget that it was the Christ that
was central in the kerugma of the early church. They did not preach
the church either as God’s choice or man’s choice. Today
much preaching among our people is designed to prove that there is
but one church and that we (and only we!) are that church. We are the
church of God’s choice! There are several things wrong with
this: (1) It assumes that we are the only ones who preach the gospel
of Christ by which men are saved and become members of Christ’s
church; (2) It assumes that we ourselves are free of the sectarianism
that we condemn in others; (3) It is an oversimplification of the
serious problem of the nature of the united church, for it is hardly
constructive to argue that everyone should conform to “Church
of Christ” religion; (4) It is a misinterpretation of the
Restoration Movement in that it confuses the church with the Movement
itself.
The more
liberal disciples among us may not realize how prevalent this
religious exclusiveness is among the more conservative elements of
our brotherhood. In a tract written by Don H. Morris, president of
Abilene Christian College, entitled What Is the Church of Christ? we
are told that the “Church of Christ” is the New Testament
church, that it is identical to the apostolic church in faith,
doctrine and practice. President Morris goes so far a. to contend
that his “Church of Christ” is the movement started by
the Campbells and Stones in the nineteenth century! After discussing
the work of the founding fathers he says, “The movement has
grown until there are 14,000 to 15,000 churches of Christ. Total
membership is estimated between 1.5 and 2 million.” This makes
the anti-instrument “Church of Christ” the exclusive and
direct heir of the great Restoration Movement, for the 14,000
congregations that Morris refers to include only those of his own
party. The one million to two million members of “the movement”
refers only to “Church of Christ” folk! The two million
“Disciples of Christ” who spring from the same Movement
and who have obeyed the same gospel are not included. It should
furthermore be observed that there can be no “Christian world”
to a man like Dr. Morris. To him the body of Christ does not include
any Methodists and Baptists who have obeyed the same Lord he obeyed.
Actually the man speaks merely in behalf of another party in
Christendom that has the denominational label of “Church of
Christ.” While this is no worse than the existence of any other
sect in our mixed up religious world (since they were after all
dumped in our laps by our forebears), it is inexcusable for anyone of
us to make the puerile claim that we have some priority on being
right while all others are wrong.
Another
illustration of this absolutism in religion comes from a brochure
issued by the Edgefield Church of Christ in Dallas. In an
advertisement of a special service mention is made of “the
Restoration Movement which swept this country at the be-ginning of
the 19th century.” It goes on to read: “Out of this
movement came the Restoration of the Church of Christ to what its
adherents believe to be the ancient order of the New Testament
Church. Members of the church total about 1,800,000.”
Some of
our brethren have about reached the place where they can write out a
list of all the Christians and submit the names of all those who will
be in heaven! My objection to such statements as those quoted is that
the thinking is unsound and the conclusions are unfounded. I also
object to the misplaced emphasis on the idea of the right church—as
if it were one’s relationship to the church that really counts
rather than to Christ Jesus! This peremptory attitude of my people is
wrong because it assumes that the great Restoration Movement with all
its principles and ideals has reached its apex of glory in “the
Church of Christ.” These brethren need not talk about a
restoration of New Testament Christianity, for it is already
accomplished in their own faith and practice! There are two
conclusions that we must avoid if we remain truly restoration-minded.
The first is that Restoration is already accomplished; the second is
that it cannot be accomplished. Either of these conclusions will
spell our ruin as helpful servants in the Kingdom of God.
The basic
fallacy however is in equating the movement to restore primitive
Christianity with the church itself. Notice that the Dallas disciples
speak of the Church of Christ coming out of the Restoration Movement.
This simply is not true unless perhaps a “Church of Christ”
in some sectarian sense is meant. Certainly the church of the New
Testament existed for 1900 years before the Restoration Movement came
along. And if there had been no such movement it would have continued
to exist just the same. We have a better perspective if we view the
Restoration Movement as within and among the divided church of God.
It was the church that produced the Restoration Movement and not the
reverse of that. It was a divided, faction-ridden, sectarian church
that produced it, But it was the church just the same. It was never
the intention of the Restoration fathers that anything should come
out from their movement except a united church. Lest we forget that
it was the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians that stated our
beloved Restoration Movement. The truth is that nothing should have
“come out” of the movement in the form of another
religious body. It may well be that here lies our great mistake. We
have raped the glorious Restoration principle by leaving the very
people who produced it and forming another sect. Correction: by
forming three sects with more and more in prospect! My “Church
of Christ” brethren must cease talking about how they have
restored primitive Christianity, for someone may ask the embarrassing
question “Which one of the Churches of Christ is the restored
church?”
Suppose
our disciple fathers had remained within the framework of the
denominations that nurtured them and patiently and lovingly worked
for Restoration in the established churches? This is the question
that deserves careful study. One fact that impresses me is that the
scriptures lend no encouragement to the idea of Christians separating
themselves from other Christians. It rather says that “they who
separate themselves are sensual” and division and schism are
listed among the works of the flesh. Ponder this question: Why should
a restoration-minded Methodist leave the Methodists? He is just where
we want him, is he not? Why not let him start a work of love (a sort
of fifth column movement) among the Methodists in behalf of
Restoration ideals?
Somewhere
along the line many of us got the idea that a person is a sectarian
just because he is a Methodist or a Baptist—and we also got the
idea that one is not a sectarian just because he is in the Christian
Church or Church of Christ. Recently I addressed a Methodist Church
on the ideal of Restoration. Among the great majority of them that
commended what I said was a man who stressed the point that he had
always believed in and worked for the oneness of Christ’s
church. He was willing and eager to see his own Methodist Church
emulsify into the one great church of God. Is that man a sectarian?
Is he a factionist? Perhaps not nearly so much as the censorious and
judgmental individual who has it all figured out that God will reject
those who use instrumental music, believe in premillennialism, or
practice open membership.
This is
not saying that doctrine is not important (as some of my readers have
interpreted me), but it is an avowal that some truths have priority
over others. While I do not hesitate to state that the instrument
question, premillennial concepts, and so-called open membership are
of such vital importance to the eventual welfare of the kingdom of
God that they must remain on the agenda for fair, full, and free
discussion, I nonetheless believe that there are neglected areas in
our faith and practice that demand prior consideration. Though Paul
agreed that “meats and drinks” had their place, he talked
about “righteousness, peace and joy” as comprising the
kingdom.
But let’s
get back to our Methodist friend. Some argue that he should leave and
unite with us so that he can worship correctly, such as break bread
each Lord’s day. I doubt if we are such a haven of truth and
righteousness as to make that argument. Too, it may be that we have
over-played our hand on being so right on the externals. Suppose the
frequency of the Supper is what interests Jesus? Perhaps not since he
said “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup. . .”
And yet I believe frequency is important. It is priority of truths
once more.
Others
say that since the Bible commands “Come out from among her, my
people, and be you separate” that the people of other churches
should come to us. But this was a call to God’s people to come
out of paganism We can hardly place “the denominational
churches” in the same category with pagan Rome.
It is
argued that if my Methodist friend “stands for the truth”
(this loaded phrase among my people means contending for what we
think is right and upholding our pet hobbies), then he will be driven
out by those who hate “sound doctrine.” Those who so
argue should read the story of that pioneer of the disciples,
“Raccoon” John Smith, who was reared among the Baptists
and who insisted upon staying with them in his labors for
Restoration. When some of them insisted that he separate himself from
them, he replied that he could not do that because of his great love
for them!
Since
Christianity is so personal I think it best to leave the decision of
the “where” and the “how” of working for
Restoration up to the individual. If the Methodist feels that he can
work for the good cause among us better than elsewhere, then he can
leave the Methodists on amiable terms and continue in his humble way
to influence them as an avowed disciple. If he chooses to remain
where he is, we should leave that to him and his Lord and work with
him for the good of all wherever he may be.
I have said several things in making the point that “the church of Gods choice”
is much bigger than our narrow, sectarian outlook. Let us cease this measurement
of the church of Jesus Christ by the yardstick of our Own arbitrary practices.
Surely the kingdom of God on earth is more than the counting of noses in the
ranks of fundamentalist disciples. God’s church on earth should be as manifold,
majestic, and meaningful in our perspective as it is in this solemn declaration
of the Christ: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the
kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matt. 12:28)
PROFESSIONALISM
AND PARTYISM
We hear
much these days about cancer research and all of us are asked to give
money to such organizations as the National Cancer Institute and the
American Cancer Society. It is probable, however, that only a few of
us have heard of the Krebiozen Research Foundation and the work of
Dr. Andrew C. Ivy. I have recently read some disturbing information
of how Dr. Ivy and the Krebiozen officials have been discredited and
abused by the American Medical Association in their attempt to test a
new cancer drug. My source of information is the remarks of Honorable
Roland Libonati of Illinois in the 86th Congressional Record. I also
have a personal letter from Senator Paul Douglas in which he further
ex-plains the situation.
This is
the story. Dr. Ivy and his associates under the sponsorship of
Krebiozen Research Foundation have developed a new drug called
krebiozen. Both Congressman Libonati and Senator Douglas are
convinced that the testimonials resulting from the use of the drug
indicate that it is far more successful than any other medication for
cancer. Libonati in his report to congress mentioned that 500
physicians have used the drug upon their patients and have submitted
reports to the Krebiozen Foundation describing step-by-step the
progressive effects of krebiozen. He further states in his report:
“There are presently 42 persons, two of whom are physicians,
who are alive and free from cancer and who, as terminal cases, were
sent home to die, and then received krebiozen and are now without a
trace of cancerous tissue or growth.” And again he tells his
fellow statesmen: “There are also, at the present time, 64
other persons, two of whom are physicians, where their cancerous
condition is in a state of arrestment and completely controlled, who
also were terminal cases and sent home to die. It is certain that the
truth always seeks out the liar.”
Dr. Ivy
and his staff are not quacks with some fanatical notion. The
gentlemen of the congress speak of Ivy in their reports as “one
of the greatest physiologists in the world” and himself a
member of the American Medical Association. Senator Douglas speaks of
his long acquaintance with him and testifies as to his integrity. So
what is the problem? If a reputable physician has discovered a drug
that may be the best treatment for cancer, why do the cancer
societies not put their millions for research behind it? It is
believed that the same pathetic story of professionalism and
partyism, which has so often deterred man’s physical and
spiritual progress, is once again being repeated in this case.
Libonati
is very outspoken in his criticism of the cancer societies who mouth
sweet words about fighting cancer and then “use every effort to
discourage, hamper, and belittle the one remedy that has proven
itself.” He argues that the cancer societies fear that they may
lose some of their great power, that they have their own pet projects
and do not want to lose donors to some other research effort. The
societies, therefore, have issued a “background” paper on
krebiozen in which they contend that the claims for it are false and
that there is nothing to it.
Rep.
Libonati feels that the medical and cancer associations are being
criminal in their “vilification and persecution” of Dr.
Ivy. Though they claim to follow the oath of Hippocrates by serving
the needs of the people rather than their own gratification, they
deliberately hinder a successful freelance effort to combat one of
man’s deadliest enemies.
Senator
Douglas feels that the cancer research societies, which are using
millions of dollars appropriated by congress, owe it to the American
people to give krebiozen a fair and impartial test. For reasons that
seem to be technical and puzzling they refuse to do this. The senator
wrote to me, “It has been difficult finding a basis on which
Dr. Ivy and his associates and the officials of the National Cancer
Institute could agree.” One would think that the society would
go out of its way to try anything that might prove to be the answer
to one of man’s greatest medical problems. Some feel that since
it is not their discovery, and since it may eclipse the glory of
their own ludicrous projects, that they refuse even to investigate
the claims for it.
We are
surely to hear more of this, for the Illinois representatives in
congress are convinced that mankind is being done a grave injustice.
Douglas informed me that a testimonial dinner was recently held in
Chicago in honor of Dr. Ivy, that more money was raised, and that the
battle for justice will continue.
To us
laymen it seems unthinkable that professional men would put their own
party before truth. Yet, as Senator Douglas states, “the
organized medical profession disparaged the great discoveries of
Pasteur, Lister and many other great path-breakers and sought to
defame their characters.” And is not the same true in religion?
There is Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Savonarola, Campbell and Stone to
mention only a few. It was the organized clergy that opposed what
these men did. Billy Sunday used to
slap his leg and cry out, Don’t forget that it was the clergy
that killed Christ.” He was right. We shouldn’t forget. I
shall always remember the reply a Harvard professor made to my
question about what would happen to Jesus Christ if he should live
among us. Without any hesitation the professor replied, “The
religious leaders would kill him or perhaps imprison him.”
Professionalism
and partyism are deadly wherever they are found, whether in
education, medicine, religion, science, or business. Mankind suffers
when party is placed before principle. Our first American president
in his Farewell Address warned against the party spirit in politics.
It stands today as a great threat to our moral values. The docrine
“the party right or wrong” is inherently evil. I was
amazed to read in a news magazine recently that statesmen in
Washington refused to approve a presidential appointee because they
did not like the person! The vote turned out to be party against
party, and there was a minimum of consideration given to the man’s
qualifications for the position. This is alarming in a day when
America is responsible for moral leadership.
As for
krebiozen as a cure for cancer, Senator Douglas is right when he says
it should be rejected if it does not prove to be worthwhile. But he
believes its advocates deserve a hearing. And this is true with any
and every reasonable petition made in the search for truth. Some of
the disciple pioneers for religious truth plowed their fields with
one hand and held a New Testament in the other. This spirit of
inquiry gained for them and the world great new truths. While the
clergy once more frowned at them, they believed in the right to be
heard—and they were heard!
In this
connection it is in order to plead for that liberty that John Stuart
Mill wrote about when he insisted that “if any opinion is
compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly
know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”
I suggest you read Gerald Richard’s article in this issue on
The Christian and the Great Ideas in which the Mill quotation can be
found.
When a man is getting better he understands more and
more clearly the evil that is still in him. When a man is getting
worse he understands his own badness less and less.—C. S. Lewis
Man
differs from the animal only by a little. Most men throw that little
away.—Confucius
If
you want to find your brothers, find yourself.—James
Oppenheim
If
you want to find yourself, find your brothers.—Harry and
Bonaro Overstreet
Love is union with somebody, or something, outside
yourself, under the condition of retaining the separateness and
integrity of oneself. It is an experience of sharing, of communion,
which permits the full unfolding of one’s inner
activities.—Erich Fromm
Strange
stirrings of hope and expectation are moving across the world. It is
possible that we may be at the fringe and frontier of a new and
marvelous epoch.—Rufus Jones