CONCERNING
OUR YOUTH
An
interested reader of this journal has requested the editor to say a
word about the conduct of certain groups of young people who attend
Bible conferences here and there. The reader reports that it is well
nigh common practice for some youth at these studies to steal away in
the night on necking parties. He tells of specific instances: “A
group of Church of Christ girls, including two elders’
daughters allowed themselves to be picked up by a bunch of town
romeos that they did not even know. They went out in the country and
necked with these boys until 3:30 a.m. At the same meeting a group of
church boys stood outside the Lord’s house and shot off fire
crackers while the meeting was in progress:”
At still
another gathering of youth some boys were staying in a barn and some
girls in the house nearby, so “during the night both sexes
would sneak out and hot-rod over the country side and then sneak back
in just before dawn,” At this same conference the young
evangelist in charge of affairs “spent most of the time telling
dirty stories.”
On the
next page of the report it gets even worse. A young evangelist
propositioned one of the girls under his charge; still another young
evangelist gave attentions to a young lady “not in the way Paul
admonished Timothy to behave.” In one of the homes where the
girls stayed there was “trashy, stimulating literature galore.”
Well, on and on it goes. The reader, who is personally known by the
editor as a reliable person, assures us that these are facts. He
thinks this is strange conduct for young people who are away from
home attending Bible conferences. His information is that this goes
on to an alarming degree at many or all of these conferences.
It is
right to be concerned. It is also right to be realistic enough to
understand that all this is part of a larger problem which must be
attacked first, The larger problem is the secularism of our culture
at large and the lack of spirituality within our own ranks. Our youth
are the product of our society. We cannot expect them to be spiritual
when we are not ourselves. To be sure, many of our people live
consecrated lives, including the majority of our youth. Yet the
misguided minority is too great. It is the task of all of us to
create a more spiritual atmosphere for our youth. This comes through
an understanding of their problems and a sympathetic approach to
those issues that most concern them. We are often too condemnatory
and censorious. We must convince our young people that we are on
their side and that we are interested in showing them the better way.
We must lead and not push. Above all we must be patient, giving
education time to be effective.
We must
become more conscious of what it means to be pure in the sight of
God. It means more than sexual purity. Purity before God means to be
free of any element that is not like God. God created us to be like
Him. Purity is maintaining that high relationship. So purity means to
free the heart from anything that is contrary to God. If our young
people—and all of us—will make purity of God their
indefatigable quest, the God of purity will give Himself in such
fullness that life will be richer and more meaningful than ever
before imagined.
The
following suggestions may be of help in our quest for purity. These
suggestions are based in pJrt upon those of Albert Edward Day in his
Discipline and Discovery.
1.
Read those books and see those pictures that make life more beautiful
and meaningful and that make temptations easier to bear.
2.
Indulge in no stories nor listen to any that have an unclean sex
reference. Learn to esteem sex as holy and honorable and as an
experience that has its proper place in the pure life.
3. Avoid
anything which lowers your inhibitions. How about smoking?
4. Set a
watch at the door of your eyes. Lusting often begins with looking.
5. Guard
your thoughts against impure imagery. “Whatsoever things are
pure” . . . think on these things.”
6.
Restrain your curiosity, especially when you are young. Learn to wait
for the answer to some of life’s mysteries.
7. Let
your thoughts dwell on what to do and be rather than on
what to avoid or shun.
8.
Practice keeping your mind upon Christ. Think of His life. What would
He do in living through you?
9.
Studiously cultivate purity of intention. Check yourself regularly to
discover any mixing motives, such as the love of gain, or fame, or
power, with the one motive to become more like God.
10. Often
during the day pause and let your mind rest upon God as revealed in
Jesus Christ—His purity, gentleness, strength, humility and
love.
11. Bear
with patience and resignation all crosses and contradictions, all
hurts and disappointments with a meek and gentle spirit.
12. Give
yourself to the task of making the world better and to the
alleviation of human suffering and misery. Be part of the answer
rather than part of the problem!
LETTERS
OF INTEREST
To the Editor: I recently obtained volumes 5 and 6 of Bible Talk
from Old Paths Book Club upon the recommendation of
_______ who is
now preaching in _______. I was pleasantly surprised as I began reading
your shackle-removing articles. I suppose the thing that made it
particularly pleasant is the fact that I had come to several
conclusions that you are putting forth. I think we both would be
surprised at the number of preachers in “our camp” who
are thinking their way out of the chains of intolerance and religious
prejudices. May God bless you in bringing souls to freedom.
By the way, I see that you use some letters that are sent in by readers. You have my permission to use this one. However, I think wisdom would suggest that names be omitted in view of the fact that ----- and myself are both located “to set things in order and appoint elders.” I would like nothing better than to teach this newly realized Christian attitude from the house tops, and one day, the Lord willing, I shall. For the present, however, I do not wish to jeopardize my opportunity to share this new found freedom with those with whom I am committed by moving too rapidly. I almost did. I would appreciate hearing from you if you have the time to write. Tell me if you think I am thinking wisely. I would appreciate any suggestions from one who has been over the road that I am beginning.
Name Withheld
(California)
To the Editor:
Please enter my subscription to Restoration Review.
I know of three men in my congregation who subscribe. All have encouraged me to subscribe too. That’s a switch! Praise God for thinking laymen!
Harold C. Gallagher, Minister
Church of Christ
San Jose 12, Calif.
To the Editor:
The paper is stimulating and refreshing. Just don’t get into
the groove these other “brotherhood” papers have gotten
into. —N. Wilson Burks, Christian Education Corp.,
Winchester, Ky.
To the Editor:
The latest issue of Restoration Review was great, especially the article by Vance Carruth. Is there any chance of this article being put in reprint form? I would take 100 copies. It should be widely circulated .. . .
Bob Haddow
Temple City, California
To the Editor:
I am deeply appreciative of your letter of November 6 and I want to
acknowledge with appreciation the three bound volumes of the
publication Bible Talk.
This is a very generous gift to the Society and it is one we profoundly appreciate.
Willis R. Jones, President
Disciples of Christ Historical Society
Nashville, Tennessee
Editor’s
Note: All of the volumes (1 through
6) of my previous publication, Bible Talk,
are now deposited with the Historical Society in Nashville.
It is our plan to present the Society with all the bound volumes of Restoration
Review as well. We urge all the publishers of
the brotherhood to do this, so that the Society in Nashville may be
the one place where the Restoration student can find anything he
wants.
To the Editor:
I agree with a great deal that you stand for, and believe firmly in your right to speak freely on all matters. There may yet be a Restoration within the denomination which now calls itself “Church of Christ,” and if so, your courage and clear thinking will have made a great contribution . . .
Name Withheld
(Professor at a “Church of Christ” college in the South)
To the Editor:
Not being any relation (intellectually or otherwise) to the Whitehead you mentioned in your journal (the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead), nor the equal of others who have commended or condemned your journal. But as a friend and brother I say with a few reservations for conscience sake that I would enjoy “going to church” with you in your dream church. Keep your head above the clouds of sectarianism and your feet on solid ground. The attitude you manifest toward those who differ with you is, I believe, the Christian attitude.
Solon Whitehead
State Farm
Atmore, Alabama
To the Editor:
What we call “The Restoration Movement” is in a bad way,
it seems to me, after some 70 years of study and contact at various
points. We are degenerating into a conglomeration of fault-finders
and exclusivists, stingers and, in some instances, stinkers.
For seven years I was editor of the Christian Standard. Since
then I have had several close contacts with varied developments. I am
afraid that what ought to be said just now could not get into any one
of our periodicals.
Restoration Review is unlike any other such periodical I have seen, and, in that, as I judge, the better .. . .
S. S. Lappin
Bedford, Indiana
To the Editor:
Your publication is a definite challenge to all serious minded thinkers who have a desire to rise above the common mouthings of a divided Christendom. There are thousands of us who need someone to lead us out of the chaos and maybe such leadership will he supplied.
C. H. Ephland
Nevada, Missouri
To the Editor:
I am delighted to know there is such a magazine which reveals an irenic spirit developing among our brethren of the Church of Christ. I see you have a good deal of criticism directed to the new enterprise. That is understandable and to be expected. You are pioneering in a worthy cause and I pray God’s richest blessing upon you and your associates..
James DeForest Murch
Managing Editor
Christianity Today
IMPORTANT
PROPOSAL
To the Editor:
It was a pleasure to meet you recently at Bethany College during the
convocation honoring Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and
Address. I was glad for the opportunity of talking with you and
was particularly pleased with your suggestion concerning the
possibility of some informal conversations in the future involving
some members of the Churches of Christ, some “independent
Disciples”, and some Disciples avowedly committed to the
cooperative structure of the brotherhood and to the ecumenical
involvement. I think this would have real significance in our own
personal lives and in the life of the church at large.
I want to commend you on the significant work you are doing with the Restoration Review. From my work on Encounter, I know what an undertaking it is to bring out a significant journal on a regular schedule. We are glad for what you are doing.
Ronald
E. Osborn, Dean
Christian Theological Seminary
Indianapolis, Indiana
(Also Editor, Encounter)
Professor
Osborn has reference ro the editor’s proposal that brethren
from the various wings of discipledom get together frequently for
discussions and fellowship. The Independents misunderstand the
Disciples, while the Disciples are barely conscious of the existence
of Churches of Christ. The Churches of Christ in turn are so involved
with internal disputes that they have lost sight of the fact that
many Disciples and Independents are actually closer to them than some
of the dissenters within their own ranks. We need ro shake hands with
each other, laugh together, talk about world problems together, pray
and sing together—anything and everything except fuss!
Restoration
Review wishes to be an instrument to such an end. The first step
should be to share ideas with each other on the printed page. This
will make for calm, studied, dispassionate examination of the
viewpoints presented. This will acquaint us with each other’s
names and ideas. The stage will thus be set for mature and meaningful
get-togethers which can be more easily arranged once we become
acquainted through the columns of a neutral journal. And the Review
is indeed neutral in that it represents no party among us. This
journal is not a “Disciple publication” in the sense that
it represents the Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches). Nor is it
a voice of the Independent Christian Churches. While its editor was
once associated with the “Church of Christ” party, he is
so no more. Yet he is a Disciple of Christ or a disciple of
Christ, if capital letters are meaningful to you. He is also within
the Church of Christ (or church of Christ, if you like) and the
Christian Church. In Other words he is a disciple-at-large. He
recognizes all these people as his brethren equally. He has no
“cousins” in Christ. Whether instrumental or
anti-instrumental, cooperative or non-cooperative, premillennial or
amillennial, liberal or conservative, classes or no classes, pastor
system or mutual ministry, cups or one cup, orphanages or no
orphanages, open membership or not, Herald of Truth or no Herald of
Truth—all such ones are his brethren because they are all in
Christ! The brother who disagrees with him is as much accepted into
his fellowship as one who agrees.
While the
editor of this journal has his view on all these things and stands
ready to defend what he believes, he does not conclude that such
disagreements make fellowship impossible. He agrees with Campbell
that there is one and only one basis for fellowship: believing the
one fact (that Jesus is the Christ) and obeying the one act
(baptism). He feels therefore that he is in a position to beckon
to all the segments among us to walk in the light of the Lord
together.
This
journal is therefore inviting representative brethren to join in a
symposium on Our Historical Heritage and Its Contribution to Our
Fellowship. We should start with our historical background, for
it is here that we have common ground. We shall invite capable men to
give their ideas and then to provide opportunity for them to explore
each other’s thinking. This will not be a debate, for debates
have always alienated us. This is to be a symposium—a free
interchange of ideas between brethren who want to be united in
Christ. We shall hope that those who engage in the discussions shall
be willing to make themselves known to our readers. We will however
permit them to write nom de plume or anonymously. This we do
since we realize it is so difficult for many representatives of the
factions among us to engage in such efforts without suffering
reprisals from their associates.
We hope
to start this symposium in either the next issue of the journal or at
least by the Spring number. In this first installment the
participants will be invited by the editor. After the discussions are
underway we will ask for contributions from our readers generally.
This
might well be a very effective start toward healing the wounds among
Disciples. Our chances are especially good since this journal
circulates among all segments of discipledom-perhaps more so than any
other periodical. Will you please join us in praying for this new
effort!
INTEREST
IN CAMPBELL AT HARVARD
Our
readers are aware of Arthur Schlesinger’s interest in Alexander
Campbell due to his recent article in this journal. The following
quotation from his recent letter will reveal still further interest
in Campbell among Harvard professors: ‘You are right about
Perry Miller’s interest in Campbell. I would suggest that
Bethany would sometime get him to lecture on Campbell as a
theologian.”
Perry
Miller is one of Harvard’s distinguished professors whose
interest lay in early American culture. I recall hearing Miller
lecture on Campbell when I was at Harvard. Afterward when we talked
privately the professor stated that he felt that Campbell was
neglected by the scholars and that he believed that Campbell should
be recognized as one of the important figures who helped to mould the
culture on the great American frontier. It is my conviction that
through such men as these Harvard professors (who are not Disciples)
an injustice in historical studies will be corrected. Due to
Campbell’s leadership in education, economics, politics, social
science as well as religion he deserves a place in history alongside
Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson.
As
Professor Miller mentioned to me, it has been left to his religious
followers to give him treatment, which is nearly always biased and
restricted. One of us who is primarily interested in Campbell’s
religion is not likely to recognize his leadership in economic
matters on the new American frontier. His educational and
intellectual leadership was generally recognized by his
contemporaries but neglected in our day. I think it is significant
that he was probably the most widely traveled man of his age.
In any
event Campbell needs attention from the historians and social
scientists. We trust that our readers will be able to read more
critiques on Campbell in this journal, including an evaluation from
Professor Miller on Campbell’s role in early American culture,
which we have invited him to make.
LETTER
TO “CHURCH OF CHRIST” EDITOR
Dr. J. W. Roberts
Abilene Christian College
Abilene,
Texas
Dear
Brother Roberts:
I read
with interest in RESTORATION QUARTERLY, Vol. 3, No. 2, your remarks
regarding Leroy Garrett and his new journal RESTORATION
REVIEW. I was amazed at your broad generalities (all undocumented of
course). Example: You say regarding the Disciples group which
supports the U.C.M.S., “Most of those in this group believe in
neither the divine origin of the Bible or the Gospel; they do
not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 6:15).”
Brother Roberts, you could not prove that statement if your life
depended on it. I don’t deny that some leaders in the Disciples
group are guilty of the charges you make, but I categorically deny
that “most of those in this group” disbelieve in the
divine origin of the Bible, the Gospel, or the deity of Christ. There
are multitudes of Christians among the Disciples whose faith in the
Gospel and in Christ is as strong as yours, I dare say. To say that
“most” disbelieve is nothing but an irresponsible
allegation and unworthy of one in your position.
You make
a vain attempt to deny that the “Church of Christ” is a
denomination. If it were not a denomination nor trying so hard to be
one, the congregations would not be so concerned with denominating
their buildings with the exclusive title, “Church of
Christ.” Why don’t they use “Church of God”
on some of their buildings rather than all using “Church of
Christ”? The answer is obvious: they denominate like all the
rest and are thus a denomination!
You
make reference to the plea of the early Restoration pioneers and then
ask, “Is our plea different today?” Then, you actually
answer yourself by saying, “It is true that the great preachers
of the 19th Century Restoration Movement continued to hold that there
were Christians in denominations and to ‘work with them’
at least to some extent.” This certainly proves that the
position of today’s “Church of Christ” group is not
that of the early Restoration pioneers, since the modern “Church
of Christ” believes (according to articles in their leading
journals) there are no Christians outside the confines of their
group. To them the “Church of Christ” is “it.”
In the U. S., If you’re not numbered among their approx.
1,500,000, it’s just too bad for you. “Church of Christ”
journals often carry such statements as; “There are only seven
Christians in South America”; “There is only one gospel
preacher in Denmark.” According to “Church of Christ”
theology unless you’ve jumped through their particular hoop and
signed on their particular dotted line, then you’re not a
Christian!
The
Restoration pioneers held that there were Christians in the
denominations. The modern “Church of Christ” group claims
they contain all Christians. If there are Christians outside this
“Church of Christ” group, then the “Church of
Christ” is a sect, which is what I’ve claimed all
along. If the “Church of Christ” group contains all
Christians, then their plea is not the same as the Restoration
pioneers since the latter held there were Christians in the
denominations.
You say
you agree that fellowship does not always imply endorsement —that
it does not in the realm of opinion and expediency; “but it
does in doctrine and faith.” If this is true, how could the
Apostle Paul address “the church of God which is at Corinth”
with all its errors and say, “ye are Christ’s; and Christ
is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:2 3). Paul made it clear that these
brethren were in fellowship with him and with God, and I don’t
think this involved approval of their errors, either. Just how is
your present fellowship maintained, Brother Roberts? Are you
convinced all the brethren with whom you are in fellowship are
completely free from error? If so, read 1 John 1:8. If not, tell me
how you fellowship people not free from error without endorsing the
error.
Have you
posthumously disfellowshipped such Restoration stalwarts as Campbell,
McGarvey, and Lard? Campbell and McGarvey both favored the Missionary
Society. Lard believed in premillennialism. Hear him:
“I hence conclude that Christ will literally come in person at
the commencement of the Millennium, and literally remain here on
earth during the entire thousand years.” (Lard’s
Quarterly, Vol 2, p. 14)
Lard was
a Restoration pioneer in good standing, but he would be definitely
disfellowshipped by the modern “Church of Christ” that
parades under the guise of being undenominational and unsectarian
when, in fact, they bind disfellowshipping laws which neither the
Apostles nor the pioneers of the Restoration Movement knew.
Surely
you know these things to be true. Then why try to make out that the
“Church of Christ” is something it isn’t? Let’s
admit that it’s part of the problem of a divided church.
Only in this way will it be effective in helping to provide the
answer.
Sincerely
yours,
Bob Haddow
THE
1960 RESTORATION REVIEW
Starting
with the next issue, Winter 1960, the Editor will begin a
series entitled On Living the Good Life. The first installment
will treat the principle of freedom—What It Means to Be
Free?
Carl
Ketcherside will continue his trenchant series on principles of
restoration. In the next issue he writes on Heralds and Herdsmen.
This will be followed in the spring number by A Feigned Fiscal
Fiat, which examines some of the current notions on giving.
Louis
Cochran is invited to submit several essays during 1960. His first
will be in the next issue, entitled The Unique Contribution of the
Campbells to Christian Unity.
This
journal also plans to run a series of symposia on unity among
disciples. Representative men from the Disciples, Church of Christ,
and Christian Church have been asked to participate.
Restoration
Review is one journal published among disciples that reaches into
all wings of the disciple brotherhood. This it can do because it is
strictly independent, representing no party among disciples.
Renew
at once!
The first volume of Restoration Review will be available in bound volumes. If you wish to reserve a copy, inform the publisher at once.