An Analysis of Church of Christ-ism . . .

ACCOUNTABILITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
by Vance Carruth

All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version

I. A PRELIMINARY PREMISE DEFINED

A. Variability of Accountability

1. For our purposes “accountability” shall be considered largely synonymous with “responsibility” and has to do with the response which God requires from the individual.

2. That the response which God requires of people varies greatly from person to person is so generally accepted as to be practically axiomatic. This principle of variability is also affirmed Biblically in numerous instances, of which two of the more familiar are the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1.4) and the Parable of the Talents (2 Matthew 25:14.30). In the case of former, Jesus states that the poor widow cast in more than did anyone else, not from the standpoint of literal quantity, but from the standpoint of capacitive ratio. In the case of the latter, a sum of money was given to each servant “according to his several ability,” i.e., according to his individual capacity (idian dunamin), and his consequent accomplishment was expected to be analogously proportionate.

3. It is in connection with such thoughts as these that we have often said, “God does not require the impossible of anyone.” This same universal principle is used by Paul in teaching relative to material liberality when he substantiates his point by saying, “it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not.”¹¹ This basic theorem necessarily inheres in the concept of justice, that no man can be expected to do what he cannot do.

B. Elements of Variability relative to Individual Capacity

1. Inherent and developed mental capacity

2. Inherent and developed physical capacity

3. Inherent and developed emotional capacity

4. Opportunity

5. Experience, culture, previous teaching and training

II. THE PREMISE ILLUSTRATE AND APPLIED

Having seen that a person’s accountability is predicated upon the basic factor of capacity, and that this capacity varies greatly from person to person, it now remains to examine the elements which are responsible for this individual variance.

A. Inherent and developed mental capacity

1. This, of course, has to do with the IQ. As a fundamental and deliberately elementary application of this capabilitive integrant, consider God’s emphatic requirement of faith, without which it is impossible to please him (Hebrews 11:6) and damnation is to be the consequence (Mark 16:16); and his command that all men everywhere repent (Acts 17:30); and his condemnation of those who do not know him and who do not obey the gospel (II Thessalonians 1:8). Yet, it is generally agreed that the idiot does not have to believe, repent, or know God. Why not? Because he cannot. How can this excuse him? Only in view of the premise that God does not require the impossible of anyone; that no one is required to do what he cannot do; and that the response of any person to any requirement can only be in ratio to his capacity. There are rwo boys, each fifteen years of age. One has an IQ of thirty, the other has an IQ of one hundred thirty. The first, we agree, does not even have to believe, know anything about God, etc.; the last, other factors being favorable, is required to do much more. Thus it is essentially avowed that, though God may be considered as absolute, his requirements of man cannot be, but are necessarily relative to the principle of variable accountability.

2. But between the mind which has no IQ and the mind which has a very high IQ, there are many degrees, so that the individual intellect might be considered as chartable somewhere on the following scale:

 

—  inherent and developed mental capacity  +

3. It should be understood that this observation is not considered applicable to the person who, through deliberate sin, drives himself into a state of mental defectiveness. This same reservation of application must obtain in the ratios yet to be listed as well. Jesus offers little hope to those who deliberately incapacitate themselves; those who stubbornly become blind followers of blind leaders. But in regard to those who are sincerely doing all they can, his attitude appears to be quite different. He says, to the self-righteous Pharisees, “If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth” (John 9:41). Had they been truly incapable of receiving his teaching, they would not have been charged with sin. But inasmuch as they were capable, and had intentionally closed their eyes to Jesus, they were held accountable. Commenting upon this passage, Albert Barnes said, “This passage teaches conclusively that men are not condemned for what they cannot do.” ²

B. Inherent and developed physical capacity

1. That the person only capable of intravenous feeding could hardly be expected to partake of the Lord’s Supper as do we; that the person who is deformed, spastic, paralytic, etc., could hardly be expected to sing or teach or work in the same manner as the strong, talented, eloquent, etc., is self-evident. Further, the psychologist recognizes the effect on basic personality of life-long illness, or life-long strength, and the variations between them.

2. But between the body which has very little physical capacity and the body which has been generously endowed, there are many degrees, so that the individual physical attributes might be considered as chartable somewhere on the following scale:

—  inherent and developed physical capacity  +

C. Inherent and developed emotional capacity

1. There can be some overlapping and interrelation between categories, as is true in this specific division, for physical conditions can have a marked effect on emotional capacity. The physiologist finds himself still impressed with the vital connection between primary personality traits and such things as metabolism, glandular activity, chemical balance, etc.

2. Some parents have learned to their amazement that even small children near the same age living under almost identical circumstances in the same home can be poles apart in personality characteristics, affecting directly the nature of their response to any given stimulus.

3. But between two personalities that are so far apart that they are practically unrelated, there are many degrees, so that the individual emotional capacity might be considered as chartable somewhere on the following scale:

—  inherent and developed emotional capacity  +

D. Opportunity

1. While opportunity is not a determinant in regard to innate ability, it is a most important constituent insofar as practical or operational ability is concerned. Again, there are two boys, each fifteen years of age. But this time the IQ of each is the same, and other factors are equal, except for the matter of opportunity. One has been raised by animals in a jungle, and has never seen or heard of a human being. The other has been raised in a Christian home in America. The only difference between the boys is the matter of opportunity. But on the basis of the previously verified premise that God does not require the impossible of anyone, the respective requirements of the two would not be expected to be the same.

2. Paul wrote, “where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” (Romans 4:15) Also, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.”(Romans 5:13) But inasmuch as man cannot live without some “code” of conduct, those living where there is no opportunity to do otherwise automatically create a code of their own, which code becomes their standard of judgment.(Romans 2:14) “But if this is true, why spend money trying to send the gospel of Christ to those who might be saved without it?” For one reason, because no self-created law could ever compare with the glory and majesty, nor could it ever hope to bring about the spiritual maturation, of the beautiful gospel of Jesus Christ. We also spend thousands of dollars each year here in America edifying those who have already heard the gospel and accepted it, in our recognition of this principle of the value of spiritual maturation.

3. But between “no opportunity” and “every opportunity” there are many degrees, so that the individual opportunitive capacity might be considered as chartable somewhere on the following scale:

—                       opportunity                       +

E. Experience, culture, and previous teaching and training

1. The experiences through which one passes, the cultures with which one is associated, and the previous teaching to which one has been exposed, affect a person’s capacity to respond to any given challenge. A man does not likely ever divorce himself entirely from his culture, nor is he really independent. Unless I am too prejudiced to admit it, I must realize that if I had been born and reared in, and still living in, a rigid and isolated Mohammedan culture in some Asian outpost, that I would likely be a Mohammedan today. Conversely, if the hypothetical Mohammedan whose place I have herein taken had been born and reared in, and still was living in, my place and circumstances, he would likely be, all other things being equal, a Christian today. Only a just God, who judges on the basis of individual rather than circumstantial attainment, is able to balance all variants judicially and judge accordingly.

2. It is written, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”(Mark 16:16) Many children, reared in Christian homes, have believed in the gospel of Christ ever since they were three years old. Why were they not then baptized? Some of that age have even asked to be. “But they are not old enough to understand.” Or, “They haven’t sinned yet.” Some of them have disobeyed their parents. Isn’t that supposed to be a sin? “But they don’t understand sin yet.” Has it never occurred to some of us that such statements are an admission that even so basic a doctrine as baptism can be legitimately modified on the basis of human understanding, when such lack of understanding is not the fault of the one lacking? It is “special pleading” to apply a principle to one case and then refuse to apply it to cases which are parallel. The thoughtful realize that some, because of previous experiences, teaching, cultural factors, personality components, etc., are as totally incapable of responding favorably to a particular message as is one who has never heard it.

3. In this connection, Alexander Campbell wrote:

Many a good man has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded as culpable and as declarative of a corrupt heart only when they proceed from a wilful neglect of the means of knowing what is commanded. Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and innocent when it is involuntary . . . True, indeed, that it is always a misfortune to be ignorant of any thing in the Bible, and very generally it is criminal. But how many are there who cannot read; and of those who can read, how many are so deficient in education; and of those educated, how many are ruled by the authority of those whom they regard as superiors in knowledge and piety, that they never can escape out of the dust and smoke of their own chimney, where they happened to be born and educated! ³

4. Another pioneer, Moses E. Lard says, commenting upon Romans 1:20, “Paul here assumed the great and constantly recurring fact in the divine government that knowledge of duty is the mea-sure of responsibility.” ⁴ Then, commenting upon Romans 2:12, Lard says, “The measure of light they have, be it much or little, is their rule of life. By this they will stand or fall.” ⁵

5. One reason such elements have such an effect on one’s capacity, is that man is inherently unable to think on any level except as he relates it to that which he already knows. If that which he already knows (or believes he knows) is inaccurate, his relation may also be inaccurate. “But I can think of a ghost, and I never saw one!” Then, describe your ghost. “Well, it is smoky, or like a fog, or vapor, etc.” You see? On the basis of smoke, or fog, or vapor, or some other thing with which the mind is already familiar, a relation is established from which the mind attempts to move to other perspectives. This intrinsic mental limitation must not be lost sight of in considering the effect of previous teaching, experience, culture, etc., on the individual capacity.

6. Even in cases where ignorance is only relatively involuntary, there is possibly an accountability variant. On what other foundation can we account for the statement of Jesus that in the judgment it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, than for those who rejected his teachings? (Matthew 10:15; 1l:24; Luke 10:12, 14; Matthew 11:22)

7. Only on this base of experience, culture, and previous teaching and training, can we appreciate the significance of the remark Jesus made to the apostles, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12) Notice: ye CANNOT BEAR (do not have the power to understand). Was the difficulty here due to a lack of IQ, or lack of opportunity for Jesus to talk to them at that time? The answer is obvious. Problems of experience, culture, and previous teaching and training had limited their capacity to understand at that particular time.

8. But between the person in whose life these elements have combined to make him completely receptive and the person in whose life these elements have combined to make him incapable of reception, there are many degrees, so that the individual cultural capacity might be considered as chartable somewhere on the following scale:

—  experience, culture, and previous teaching and training  +

III. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS

A. A multiplicity of variables

1. All the foregoing relative scales blend in varying combinations in every individual, to form a total accountability scale as follows:

—  personal accountability  +

2. Then, a separate total accountability scale would likely be required for each specific act, or thought, or feeling, or requirement, etc., in view of the non-linearity of our capacity to respond in the same way to variant stimuli.

3. There are only a few primary colors, but think of the many tints, hues, shades, and shadows, possible with different blends. When we meditate upon the five elements of variability already discussed (and possible others which we have not discussed), and consider the many gradations into which each may be subdivided, then blended into varying combinations from person to person, the postulate that no two people are exactly alike takes on added credibility. As a result,

a. we should be less inclined to be judgmental toward others, and

b. we should have greater appreciation for the omniscience of God, who alone can know what is required of each individual in each case under every circumstance.

4. Also to be recognized is the fact that where total capacity is nearly the same in several different people, the individual response and action may still vary due to other variants not herein considered, and that God may still reward or punish proportionately in some instances. This seems to be the primary distinction between the Parable of the Talents referred to earlier, and the Parable of the Pounds. (Luke 19:13.27) In the Parable of the Talents, the money was distributed according to the “several ability” (individual capacity) of each. Apparently, in the Parable of the Pounds, equal capacity exists, and each servant receives the same amount (one pound). The first, with one pound, gains ten. He is commended, and rewarded. The second, with one pound, gains five. He is NOT commended, but is still rewarded in proportion. The third, with one pound gains nothing and is condemned. Having offered this suggestion, we must leave this particular observation, for further pursuance would involve questions of de-grees of reward and punishment, which are outside the scope of this discussion.

5. It is easily seen that the whole matter under discussion in this paper relates itself closely to the grand themes of the grace, mercy, love, and clemency of God, concerning each of which many good books have been written, and which we cannot hope to deal with in detail in so short a writing as this.

B. Psychological repercussions

1. Such a philosophy as deduced from the foregoing strikes hard against proud dogmatism and legalistic absolutism. This being true, it is psychologically difficult for some minds to grasp, due to the sense of security (and perhaps superiority) which absolutism affords. The tendency to want to be able to Pidgeon-hole everyone and everything, to fence off people and ideas into a certain proscribed area, to point confidently to a person or a doctrine and categorize it exactly with wholesale abandon, is probably not too far from most of us, since such precise cataloging gives us the feeling that we have everything and everyone under “control,” and hence are secure.

2. But be this as it may, Jesus taught no such absolutism of externals. We may think of God as absolute, and similarly the revelation of himself in Jesus Christ, but all else must be ultimately relative. Thus, we should be humbled, reconciled to letting God be the judge, and ourselves made less self-secure, but much more Christ-secure!

3. Still, we need some way of determining whom we shall associate with and recognize as Christian brethren. How can this be done? Some attempt at assistance on this matter shall be made in the applications to follow.

IV. PERTINENT APPLICATIONS

A. Who is a Christian?

1. From the observations previously made it is seen that the questions: “Who is a Christian?” and “Who will be in heaven?” are not necessarily identical, unless one arbitrarily and perhaps rather illogically defines a Christian as anyone who will be in heaven (the faithful of the Old Testament, those who are unaccountable because of never having had a possible opportunity to hear the gospel, etc.).

2. What is likely the best definition of a Christian? The only Biblical definition is this: “and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”(Acts 11:26)1 So, a Christian is simply a disciple of Christ, and a disciple of Christ is a Christan. A disciple, of course, is a follower, a learner, a pupil. Thus Thayer defines a Christian (Christianos) as “a follower of Christ. . . a worshipper of Jesus.”⁶ Someone may ask, “Then, there were Christians before Pentecost of Acts Two?” Yes, in essence, though not in name, just as for the period of about ten years between Pentecost and the incident in Antioch there were no Christians in name, but certainly in essence.

3. This is substantially the characteristic thought along this line as held by the leaders of the Restoration Movement. Alexander Campbell deals with the question in these words:

But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of this wilI.⁷

4. Campbell’s definition is profound. Is not the person who thus believes and repents and obeys to the best of his knowledge, a follower of Jesus? And is not a follower a disciple, and a disciple a Christian? Also, from the standpoint of variable accountability, and the premise that God does not require the impossible of anyone, is it not adequate? If a man believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will, we ask, WHAT MORE CAN HE POSSIBLY DO THAN THAT? I have done no more than that, neither have you, nor is it possible for anyone else.

5. There are some objections to this definition.

a. “But some might not even know enough to believe.” True, and in some cases, as has been previously considered, they might not be accountable, and who is to say that God might not show clemency or mercy in such instances, but still these would not likely be considered Christians if. we follow the definitions given and the principle of Messiahship and Annointing which inheres in the word “Christ” (Christos).

b. “But then why should they be required to repent?” Repentance is simply a change of mind. It is given here to preclude the strictly intellectual acknowledgment which might say, “Yes, he’s the Son of God, but what do I care?” To be a follower implies a favorable response toward, and so it is used here.

c. “But a person needs to know so much more.” Just how much and how perfectly? And remember the principle: God doesn’t require the impossible . .. . and a man can’t possibly do more than to the best of his knowledge. Certainly, if a man realizes he needs to know more and then deliberately refuses to learn more, he is not doing to the best of his knowledge, for his best knowledge here in-cludes a knowledge of the need to know more. But if he does not realize his knowledge in regard to a particular item is imperfect, or that he needs to know more, it is not likely that he will go to great lengths to correct that which he already thinks is right. Among those who do know more than others, the amount, character, and quality of this knowledge may vary greatly from person to person.

6. That ignorance of some kinds and in certain instances does affect responsibility has been substantiated in the initial comments of variable accountability. It is further indicated in the following passages, for example.

a. When James says, “To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin,” (James 4:17) there naturally follows the strong implication that if, in some cases, a man did not know to do good, to him it might not be sin.

b. When Jesus prays for his crucifiers, he predicates his request for their forgiveness on the basis of the fact that they did not know what they were doing. (Luke 23:34)

c. When Paul avers his precedent conduct towards the church to have been one of blasphemy, persecution, and injury, he declares that the mercy he received was due to this prior misconduct being motivated through ignorance and unbelief.! (1 Timothy 1:13)(We shall not delve here into the differences between lack of obedience and disobedience, or between unbelief and disbelief, and the many degrees between them.)

B. What is the church of Christ?

1. In asking this question, we are thinking of the church in the universal, not in the local, sense. Where on the scale of the individual’s accountability does his church membership begin and end, insofar as the Lord is concerned, and is the entrance line one of abrupt exactness, and absolute?
 

—  (  (  (  (   Christian — B. R. Obey   (  (  +

 

   ?  ?  ?  ?                                                    ?  ?

2.  We may never be able to answer this question conclusively, but we can study it. If we think of the church as the people who are called out of the world (ecclesia) into fellowship with Christ; as the family of God; the assembly of saints; it is but natural to wonder where the border lines are. On the scale above, we have used parentheses to indicate these borders. The parenthesis on the right shall cause no great concern, since there is not likely to be any question as to whether or not those who are exceptionally accountable and have outstanding knowledge of Christ and have followed accordingly are in the church. In the center of the scale we have indicated the Christian—the person with sufficient capacity to believe, repent, and who is obeying the Lord according to his measure of knowledge of his will. Starting from the left, some might wish to consider the church entrance border to be at the point of the first parenthesis, which we have arbitrarily placed at this point to indicate the mentally incompetent. But even though we can recognize such as being acceptable in the sight of God, there may be no great reason to consider them as members of the church. The second parenthesis might include those of slightly higher IQ, and perhaps the infants, but still below the level of faith capacity. The preceding observation would probable apply equally here. The third parenthesis indicates those whose IQ is adequate, but whose opportunities to know Christ as we do are limited, but who, nevertheless, are following whatever light is available to them. The fourth parenthesis is to indicate the Christian; the person who believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. If church membership begins here, it is a simple matter then to say that the church consists of all Christians, and all Christians are in the church. The fifth parenthesis from the left indicates those who have had sufficient knowledge to have some vague concept of baptism and have acted upon it. The sixth parenthesis from the left indicates those who had sufficient knowledge to have a clear concept of baptism and have acted upon it. (There are many degrees between all of these, of course.) Some want the church to begin here, and though admitting that the Christian begins at the fourth parenthesis, affirm that church membership, as such, does not begin until the fifth or sixth parenthesis.

3. Depending somewhat on which parenthesis we choose, if we must choose one, it generally follows that the question of getting into the church and getting into heaven are not exigencially identical.

4. Perhaps the best simple definition of the church we can suggest is this: the church is a spiritual body composed of all the people of God everywhere.

C. Are there Christians in denominations?

1. We will not labor to be definitive at this point, but simply accept the ordinary connotation of the word “denomination.” That there are Christians among the religious sects is a fundamental concept of the Restoration Movement. This was the significance of the motto, “We do not claim to be the only Christians, but Christians only.” If the “Church of Christ” as commonly thought of today is a denomination, which will be considered in a few moments, there must be Christians in denominationalism or else there are none among us. If the definition of “Christian” as given earlier is sound, then the existence of Christians among the sects is unquestionable, for no one is likely to deny that among these groups there are those who believe in Christ, have repented, and are obeying him according to their measure of knowledge of his will. Nor will anyone likely assert that all among our own group do that. This would mean that not all Christians are in the “Church of Christ,” and that not all in the “Church of Christ” are Christians.

2. After all, are not external acts means to an end, rather than an end within themselves? Is not the purpose of Christianity to mold people in the image of Christ? If some should attain to this image even though their vision of some externals might be obscure, would not the same end thus be realized? Again, this was the view of the Restoration. Alexander Campbell wrote:

If there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the EVERLASTING kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the GATES OF HELL HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST HIS CHURCH! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects . . . I cannot, therefore, make anyone duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. “Salvation was of the Jews,” acknowledged the Messiah; and yet he said of a foreigner, an alien from the common-wealth of Israel, a Syro-Phoenician, “I have not found so great faith-no, not in Israel.” Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians . . . It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known. . . The case is this: When I see a person who would die for Christ; whose brotherly kindness, sympathy, and active benevolence know no bounds but his circumstances; whose seat in the Christian assembly is never empty; whose inward piety and devotion are attested by punctual obedience to every known duty; whose family is educated in the fear of the Lord; whose constant companion is the Bible: I say, when I see such a one ranked amongst heathen men and publicans, be-cause he never happened to inquire, but always took it for granted that he had been scripturally baptized; and that, too, by one greatly destitute of all these public and private virtues, whose chief or exclusive recommendation is that he has been immersed, and that he holds a scriptural theory of the gospel: I feel no disposition to flatter such a one; but rather to disabuse him of his error. And while I would not lead the most excellent professor in any sect to disparage the least of all the commandments of Jesus, I would say to my immersed brother as Paul said to his Jewish brother who gloried in a system which he did not adorn: ‘Sir, will not his uncircumcision, or unbaptism, be counted to him for baptism? and will he not condemn you, who, though having the literal and true baptism, yet dost transgress or neglect the statutes of your King? ⁸

3. Campbell had reference, in the last part of the quotation, to the reasoning of Paul wherein the apostle argued against Jewish legalism by taking the position that circumcision was both outward and inward, and that a sincere heart might attain the inward circum-cision though never circumcised outwardly, whereas the boastful Jew, though circumcised outwardly, had never attained to the inward cir-cumcision, so that he would be condemned, and the other man justi-fied; so that the outward act was merely a means to an end, and if another achieved the end without the external act, it would be con-sidered as equivalent, and thus acceptable.(Romans 2:25-29) The burden of the message was, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14) And, “we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.”(Romans 7:6) And, “for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”(II Corinthians 3:6)

4. The two strongest points in the Jewish law of ritual, so far as the Pharisaic concept was concerned, were circumcision and the Sabbath.(Mark 2:27) All these externals were means to an end, not ends of themselves.

5. We must constantly guard against the attitude of the early disciples of Jesus who ran to him with the shocking news that they had found another also casting out demons, and “he followed not us.” Jesus answered, “Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.(Mark 9.38-41)l Then, to warn the disciples of the danger of “forbidding” such people, Jesus continues in the very next words and as part of the same statement, “And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”(Mark 9:42)

6. The pioneer spirit of tolerance is enjoined by David Lipscomb who said:

So long as a man really desires to do right, to serve the Lord, to obey His commands, we cannot withdraw from him. We are willing to accept him as a brother, no matter how ignorant he may be, or how far short the perfect standard his life may fall due to this ignorance.

We will maintain the truth, press the truth upon him, compromise not one word or iota of that truth, yet forbear with the ignorance, the weakness of our brother who is anxious but not yet able to see the truth. Why should I not when I fall so far short of the perfect knowledge myself? How do I know that the line beyond which ig-norance damns is behind me and not before me? If I have no forbearance with his ignorance, how can I expect God to forbear with mine?

So long then as a man exhibits a teachable disposition, is willing to hear, to learn and obey the truth of God, I care not how far he may be, how ignorant he is, I am willing to recognize him as a brother.⁹

D. A more elementary consideration

1. But let’s move down to a level where there is likely to be even more agreement. For example, consider the First Christian Church (the conservative branch, if you wish), in which the members have subscribed to the same “first principles” as have we. It is tragically interesting how some of us think we can divide on matters of cups, classes, orphan homes, sponsoring churches, premillenialism, etc., and that these groups are still “of us,,” but the moment division comes over a missionary society or instrumental music, a “denomination” has been formed and is not “of us.” Errors exist in all groups, even in “ours.” On what principle of reasoning can we admit that First Christians are people of God, but a denomination, and then claim that we are also people of God, but a separate group from them, and yet NOT a denomination? Such reasoning is internally inconsistent. Further, our own divided state is making it increasingly difficult for us to appeal to people to come to the “Church of Christ” as the “True Church,” for fear someone may ask the shattering question, “Which one of your many factions is ‘The True Church’?”

2. The reason we used the First Christian church as illustrative of the principle in point is because 1p.any among us will at least ad-mit that these people (i.e., the sincere members among them) can be considered Christians because they have been “baptized for the remission of sins!” But just how much would a person have to know about baptism in order for it to be valid? The same Peter who said to be baptized for the remission of sins added, in the very same verse, that baptism also was in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(Acts 2:38) Yet there is great diversity of opinion among us as to exactly what this gift is, its significance, how and when it operates, etc., but we seem to agree that the baptism is valid even though we are confused on the point of the gift of the Holy Spirit accompanying it. Then, suppose I ask someone else, “Why were you baptized”?: He replies, “Because I think my Lord wanted me to be, and I want to do everything my Lord tells me.” I continue, “But did you understand that the word ‘for’ in the King James translation of Acts 2:38 means ‘in order to’ and comes from a Greek word which so signifies?” He replies, “All I knew was that my Lord wanted me to be baptized, and I wanted to do everything he wanted me to do, and I was willing to trust him to take care of me in whatever way he saw fit.” How could I draw a line of disfellowship against a person under these conditions? Suppose he had been led to believe that baptism was “because of” remission of sins, but still, he was baptized simply because he wanted to do whatever the Lord wanted him to do, regardless of this lack of understanding. Who can say that the Lord would refuse forgiveness to such a one just because he did not understand that baptism was for that purpose? Or, as has been brought out earlier, maybe he had been mistaught on what baptism was, or maybe he was never even able to hear of it. It is a rather interesting philosophy which teaches that Grace may operate in regard to a man’s faith, in which there are certain imperfections, so that he does not really trust in the Lord as much as he ought to; or in regard to a man’s repentance, in which there are certain limitations, so that he has not really turned away from material things as much as he ought to; or in regard to a man’s confession, in which there are cer-tain weak points, so that he does not always witness for Christ as fully as he could; etc.; and that Grace may take into consideration various factors and be merciful; but that this same Grace becomes inoperative if it comes to a matter of defection in baptism, instru-mental music, missionary society endorsement, or denominational affiliation. It is significant to note that most of the information that we have concerning, for example, baptism (as in the sixth chapter of Romans), was written to people who had been baptized already, in order that they might understand it. It was not written to those who were about to be baptized. Yet, there was never any suggestion that those who had been baptized in the name of Christ must be bapitzed again because they didn’t understand enough, or that they must not be fellowshipped by those who understood it better.

3. Another giant of the Restoration Movement, Barton W. Stone, has this to say:

But says one, I cannot have communion with an unimmersed person; because he is not a member of the church of Christ, however pious and holy he may be. I ask, is he a heathen, or publican? for such is the character of those excluded from the church. Matt. 18. All are either for or against Christ the Lord. “He that is not with me is against me.” Shall we say, all are the enemies of Christ who are not immersed? We dare not. If they are not enemies, or if they are not against him, they are for him and with him; shall we reject those who are with Jesus, from us? Shall we refuse communion with those with whom the Lord communes? Shall we reject those who follow not with us in opinion? Shall we make immersion the test of religion? and shall we centre all religion in this one point? Shall we more insist on this point, than on faith, repentance, and the love of God, connected with a life of holiness, mercy and self denial? . . .

Do they really distinguish themselves above all others in piety and holiness, who reject from fellowship all the un-immersed? If this were a fact, it would be a prevailing argument indeed. I advise the Christians not to be too solicitous to enquire, “What shall this man, or those men do.” Let them attend to their own duty. LET US STILL ACKNOWLEDGE ALL TO BE OUR BRETHREN, WHO BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS, AND HUi\fBLY AND HONESTLY OBEY HIM, AS FAR AS THEY KNOW HIS WILL, AND THEIR DUTY. (Emphasis mine, v,c.) ¹⁰

4. “But I’ve always been taught there is only one church.” So there is. But in view of the thoughts considered in this discussion, can it not be that this one church consists of more than just certain ones in “our group”? Some of us have denominationalized ourselves to the extent that many have a purely sectarian concept of the church. We have given the church an “official” name: “Church of Christ.” The Lord’s church had no title. Some have given up the plea “No Creed but Christ,” which was so much a part of Restoration sentiment, and which was the basis for the thoughts expressed by Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb, and others, and substituted a complex creed, which, though not written, is as real as any which is. There are those who seem to have assumed a “brotherhood orthodoxy,” and expect all within to be conformists, or else be effectively excommunicated as heretics. To these, tradition has become law, cmtom has become ritual, theology is prefabricated, and they have been appointed door-keepers of God’s kingdom. As a result, there are minds which have become parasitic—afraid to think for themselves or question the orthodoxy. The pressure is great, and is reminiscent of the power of Roman Catholicism over the minds of its adherents. The sermon of Paul to the Jews in Acts 13:16-41, and to the Gentiles in Acts 17:16-31; his conduct in regard to the Jews in Acts 21:17 -26; the sentiments, attitude, and expressions of John in his first epistle, which he wrote many years after Pentecost to people who had no New Testament; would be considered inadequate, unsound, and misleading to many today. There are those who could no longer fellowship Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb, and others of equally liberal view, though they speak glowingly of their work of Restoration, and perhaps thus place themselves in the position of those described by Jesus who garnish the tombs of the dead prophets and then hasten to kill the live ones.¹¹

CONCLUSION:

I. WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

The Restoration Movement began a wonderful work, but became bogged down in its own success, as men of poorer understanding began to sectarianize that which was to have been characteristically non-sectarian. Many stopped saying, “We don’t claim to be the only Christians,” and began boldly declaring, “We most certainly ARE the only Christians!” The plea, “let us unite in a humble search for truth,” capitulated to the cry, “Come to us, we alone have the truth! “ The enlivening spirit of “we are on our way” gave way to the deadening philosophy of “we have arrived!” Search for truth melted away into an attitude of fervently defending the status quo.

II. WHAT IS THE SITUATION TODAY?

A beautiful attitude of restoration fluidity has thus in some areas crystalized into a static attitude of dogmatism. Hence, in many minds, the Restoration Movement is no longer a movement, but has stagnated into a creedalized denomination, with the ever-increasing danger of its followers becoming a part of a mentally inert herd, an amorphous mass, with no real Spirit of its own.

III. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

Perhaps there are those of us who need a rebirth of the spirit of restoration, a de-sectarianizing of our thinking, a destruction of creedalistic concepts and party perspectives, greater love for truth, greater love for all men, greater love for Christ, a more genuine spirit of humility, and less a spirit of proud legalism, absolutism, and adamant exclusivism. A return to the plea of “No Creed but Christ,” with all that this implies, can perhaps help us to regain the rich concept of New Testament Christianity in all of its fulness.

___________________

Vance Carruth was until recently on the administrative staff of a “Church of Christ” college. He requested that this essay not be published until he were no longer connected with the college. This is a daring and revolutionary piece of work for one within the “Church of Christ” environment, but the kind of thinking that will once more make us free men in Christ. I think I know that no professor of these “Church of Christ” institutions can talk as Mr. Carruth does and find favor with his superiors. He here uses the kind of pen that brings freedom to enslaved men.—Editor