WHY I AM A DISCIPLE-AT LARGE

A look at the divided ranks of discipledom would convince one that the Disciples do indeed believe that Christ is divided. No religious people pleads for unity as much as we, and this is good; but hardly any religious communion is as divided as we, and this is bad. So strong was the desire to keep “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” among the pioneers that the Restoration Movement weathered the stormy days of the Civil War without division, even though other churches were torn asunder by the cleavage of North and South. It was not until the twentieth century that the Disciples learned the cruel practice of alienating Christians and dividing churches into warring camps.

And when the Disciples do something they do it well. No people can so everlastingly disunite as we. When we split it is with such finality that we virtually forget that each other exist! It has been an amazing thing to me that the various groups of Disciples know so little about each other. It is obvious enough that they know more about such neighbors as the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians than their own dissenting Disciple brethren. It may also be true that many Disciples find more in common with churches outside the Restoration tradition than with those within it. This may in part be due to a lack of communication between the Disciple groups. If it is true that insight comes through involvement, then the first step toward a correction of this unhappy situation is for more contacts to be established between brethren who have virtually forgotten each other.

Another factor is that it is psychologically true that we often feel more alienated from those who once were with us but who now differ with us than with those who were never with us at all. Fraternal strifes can be so final. It is not uncommon to see a man who is a leader in his community and at peace with his neighbors who will not even speak to his brother in the flesh. It is somewhat that way with Disciples. The “Disciples of Christ” group is highly conscious of the ecumenical movement and likes to feel that its part in this important work is significant, and this is good. Yet these brethren are only faintly aware of the fast-growing “Church of Christ” wing of our movement. Many of them have never worshipped with an anti-instrument congregation and even among the “Disciple” leaders there is hardly anyone who has active contact with many of the “Church of Christ” ministers or institutions. And this is not altogether due to the unbrotherly attitude of the “Church of Christ.”

If the “Disciples” were as concerned with their fellow restorationists in Nashville as they are with their fellow ecumenicals at Evanston, the road to unity among our people would be less difficult. There is the proverbial barber who always needs a haircut. And there are my brethren who get all worked up over uniting the churches of the world while in their own backyard there are fences to mend. It appears strange to me how “Disciples” will talk of uniting with Northern Baptists, which might well involve a surrender of some Restoration truths, and yet leave unexplored the possibility of more fellowship with the “Church of Christ” with whom the bone of contention would likely be no more serious than the organ or the U.C.M.S.

As for the “Church of Christ” attitude toward “Disciples’, I suppose no more can be said than that it is one of complete alienation. They recognize almost no kinship at all with the “Disciples”. Only the “Church of Christ’ folk constitute the Lords people, which makes “Disciples” aliens. I would think that nearly every anti-instrument minister would re-baptize any candidate for membership that was immersed in “the Christian Church.”

If the cleavage is this deep, then why try to unite? Because there is evidence that this exclusivism within the “Church of Christ” is gradually losing its hold. Absolutism in religion starves the spirit of man. Our brethren in the “Church of Christ” have split so many times in an effort to have a loyal church that the idea of unity amidst diversity is beginning to be considered. At present the anti-instrument churches have something like sixteen different “loyal” churches. It becomes a desperate situation when the greatest issues to challenge the intellect of man is whether a congregation can divide into classes to teach the Bible or unite with other congregations in supporting a TV program. Souls that thirst for God as the hart pants for the waterbrook tire of such superficiality.

Both age and education will be other forces that will move the “Church of Christ” closer to the traditional Restoration principles. We are not going to be able to send our young college professors to such graduate schools as Chicago, Yale, Princeton and Harvard and at the same time expect them to be sympathetic with the anti-intellectualism of the “Church of Christ.” In another editorial I am describing our problem of maintaining a parochial school system amidst an intellectual awakening of our people.

I am saying all this to indicate to the “Disciples” that it is their duty to keep as close as possible to the dissenting groups that break away from the main stream of the Restoration Movement. It should be their responsibility to help their forgotten brethren to see the beauty of ecumenicity as it is to arouse the Scotch Presbyterians. An awareness of one another is an important step in the road to recovery. We all have much more in common than we realize. Reared as I was within the narrower view I have come to rejoice over the discovery of so many brethren that I did not realize I had!

The most enigmatic of all the Disciple fissions is what we call the Independents. Professor DeGroot calls them “Church of Christ Number 2”, which may or may not be a conciliatory gesture. One “Disciple” said of them, “They are just like the Church of Christ except that they have a piano.” To me the Independent rupture is the most interesting and revealing of all. It interests me because it seems so inexcusable. When I ask for an enumeration of the things that split them from the “Disciples”, the things that are named are the things the Independents have themselves started doing during the first few years of their separate existence. The exceptions to this are “open membership” and liberalism, which are hardly reasons to divide (Is there a scriptural defense for Christians separating from other Christians?) since these conditions vary so much from church to church.

But I say the Independent fission is not only interesting but revealing as well. It shows that there is something about Disciple thinking—just what it is I have not yet discovered—that leads us to settle disputes by running off from them. It may be our immaturity. The Independents objected to the U.C.M.S. and to the national convention. But now they have their own missionary enterprises and their own convention. The only logical sequence is for the next group of dissenters among the Independents to pull away and become what DeGroot will no doubt call “Church of Christ No.3.” All this is child’s play. I affirm that division is a coward’s way of solving problems. Let us grant that “liberalism’ has a toehold within “Disciple” ranks and that a number of churches practice “open membership.” Then this would be occasion for the dissenters to stand up for what they believe to be right, and not to run off and start another denomination.

The Independents will say I am oversimplifying and that the complexities are too great for fence mending. They have written the “Disciples” off as a lost cause. While visiting a class at Cincinnati Bible Seminary a few months back, I noticed with interest the professor’s report to the class that in a lawsuit between Independents and “Disciples” in a certain town over church property that the loyal brethren had won the property. Since I was in a C.B.S. classroom I did not have to inquire as to which ones the “loyal” brethren might be. Being from Texas and having been nurtured by the “Church of Christ” I was well aware of that loaded term, for in Texas we have many “loyal’ churches. Which one is loyal? It all depends on where you are at the time!

I will venture to say that if one should go to the brethren who were divided over the lawsuit (How ghastly! How dare anyone say that one side “won” it!) and associate with them he would have difficulty telling the Independents and “Disciples,” apart. It is the clergy and the Bible colleges that promote these antagonisms. I associate with all three of these Restoration groups, and I am always gratified to find that they are after all so much alike.

And how do the “Disciples” view the Independents? Well, unlike the case of the “Church of Christ” wing, they are at least aware of them! It is a kind of holy disdain. They seem quite willing to forget about them. When one realizes that all three of these groups number upwards of four millions, he can see what a tremendous force they could be amidst divided Christendom if they could present a united front.

I have said all this in order to say that I believe the only possible solution to our divided state of affairs is for us to refuse ro recognize these fissions as valid. This is why I am a Disciple-at-Large. I am a Disciple, but not a “Disciple” in the sense of being separate from the Independents and the “Church of Christ.” They are all my brethren. We are all a part of the greatest idea in American church history—or any other church history—the restoration of primitive Christianity. I work and worship with all three groups with the idea that the division is inexcusable and meaningless. I simply ignore the efforts made to separate us into separate stalls. I agree with Alexander Campbell in his contention that there are only two conditions for fellowship in Christ—believing the one fact that Jesus is Lord and obeying the act of baptism which puts one into Christ.

How about instrumental music? I am personally non-instrumental, but not anti-instrumental, and by this I mean that I do not and cannot make it a test of fellowship since God did not. The “Church of Christ” is right in not using the instrument, feeling as it does, but wrong in making it a matter of fellowship. We could all work together with some congregations having the instrument and some nor. It is all right to make the instrument an issue in Restoration, and by this I mean it should be discussed and studied in an intelligent, brotherly way. But it should not be made a test of fellowship for the simple reason that God has made only the Lordship of Christ the test of fellowship.

This is true of liberalism, open membership, premillennialism, classes, pastor system, congregational cooperation, Herald of Truth, or whatever it is that divides us. We can enjoy fellowship in Christ with each other despite these differences. God never intended for us to see everything exactly alike, and it is as natural for a man to think unlike other people as it is for him to look unlike other people. This does not mean that some differences may not be very important; nor does it mean that we are not to be busy working out those serious differences that may hinder our work of Restoration.

It only means that we are to obey the Lord by accepting each other as brethren regardless of the divergences. If Romans 14 means anything it means that we are to make allowances for individual differences and not restrict our fellowship to those who happen to agree with us on everything. These quotations from Romans 14 are from the Phillips translation:

Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples. One man believes that he may eat anything; another man, without this strong conviction, is a vegetarian. The meat eater should not despise the vegetarian. nor should the vegetarian condemn the meat eater—they should reflect that God has accepted them both. After all, who are you to criticize the servant of somebody else, especially when that somebody else is God?

Again, one man thinks some day” of more importance than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let everyone be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, He does so “to God.” The man who eats, eats “to God,” for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The truth is that we neither live nor die as self-contained units. At every turn life links us to God, and when we die we come face to face with him.

Why, then, criticize your brother’s actions, why try to make him look small? We shall be judged one day, not by one another’s standards or even our own, but the standard of Christ.

Let us therefore stop turning critical eyes on one another. If we must be critical, let us be critical of our own conduct and see that we do nothing to make a brother stumble or fall.

Is not Paul saying that some brethren believe one thing while others believe something else, but that in any event fellowship with each other is not to be impaired? If this would apply to such matters as diet, fasting, and observing of days (all important points to people with a background in Judaism), would it not likewise apply to pianos and missionary societies. The fallacy in our thinking has been that fellowship entails endorsement. In Romans 14 Paul is not requiring that the vegetarian endorse the position of the meat eater. He can continue to disagree, and even be free to teach the meat eater better as time goes on. But he is to receive (accept as a brother in Christian fellowship) the meat eater.

This is why I am a Disciple-at-Large. I can receive all my brethren. I do not have to build stalls or set up categories in which to divide God’s people. While I am aware of the differences that exist, and while I too have my convictions on all these viewpoints, I believe that the differences have not one thing to do with fellowship in Christ. I shall be glad to open these columns to any man who can cite one condition of fellowship that God has not made a condition of salvation. Fellowship is in God’s hands, not something that we control. All people who are in Christ are in fellowship with each other. God “calls us into the fellowship of his Son” (2 Cor. 1:9) . “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). The “light’ here is not pots, pans, organs, societies, or “things” that Christians divide over. The light is God—the revelation of Himself through Christ (verse 5). Even “the truth” mentioned in the same context cannot be made to mean all the doctrines of the Bible, for men can never “walk together” in the sense of understanding exactly alike everything the Bible says. The “truth” is the fact of Christ in history.

So, as Campbell put it , when one believes that fact and obeys the act (baptism) he is in the fellowship of Christ. It matters not how wrong he may be otherwise, he is in Christ and he is my brother. Fellowship is between fellows, not things and not even doctrines. When these fellows are in Christ they are all in fellowship with each other. Jesus built no stalls. I am not intending to crawl into any of these stalls erected by dissidents and bellow my head off about how loyal I am. I only want to be in Christ. This makes me a Disciple-at-Large, a simple Christian, and it puts me in fellowship with all the children of God throughout the world.
 

WHY CAMPBELL WAS NOT AN EVANGELIST

By 1830 the Restoration Movement was making tremendous headway. Campbell’s Christian Baptist had completed seven thunderous years and it had enjoyed such success in arousing people to think that a Baptist journal in Richmond commented:

It appears to me peculiarly important, at the present period, while that which I consider ruinous error, is coming into the churches like a flood, that all evangelical ministers should aim to draw the cords of brotherly love more closely, and “strengthen the things that remain.” I think I am warranted in the belief that the religious sentiments of Alexander Campbell are exerting already a most deadly influence on the peace and prosperity of the Baptist churches—and are calculated, most eminently, to injure the cause of vital godliness, wheresoever the little work, called the Christian Baptist is read and believed.

The New York Baptist Register was even more emphatic in its account of the spread of Campbell’s influence: “Mr. Campbell’s paper, and their vigorous missionary efforts, are making great achievements. It is said that one half of the Baptist churches in Ohio have embraced this sentiment and become what they call ‘Christian Baptists’. It is spreading like a mighty contagion through the Western States, wasting Zion in its progress. In Kentucky its desolations are said to be even greater than in Ohio.”

It was the first year of the Millennial Harbinger. Campbell was 42. His recent debate with Robert Owen, the infidel, had made him famous. The cause that he was giving his life to was spreading like a prairie fire across the great American frontier. At this time Alexander Campbell was one of America’s most widely traveled men. And yet it was during these days of widespread evangelistic zeal that Campbell explained why he was not an evangelist. The lesson is a good one for us all.

After stating that “the proclamation of the gospel is now everywhere attended with conversions as sudden, as decisive, as strongly marked as many of those of ancient times, he goes on to say:

My duties to the public, as an editor, prohibit my doing the work of an evangelist; and when I make a tour it is more to disseminate the general principles of reformation, than to proclaim the ancient gospel for the purpose of converting sinners to God. It is one thing to state and prove what the ancient gospel is, and another to make it the instrument of conversion to God. (Mill. Harb., 1830, p. 366).

In this same essay Campbell recounts two recent trips during which he preached the gospel and converted some thirty persons to Christ. Yet he said he was no evangelist! This involves us in Campbell’s concept of the gospel and as to what constitutes an evangelist. It is obvious from the above quotation that he saw a difference between editorial work and the proclamation of the gospel, and even between “the general principles of reformation” and the gospel.

He explains his position further by distinguishing between “Christian teaching and doctrine and the internal affairs of Christ’s kingdom,” which he agrees are useful, though they “belong not to the proclamation of the gospel and ought not to be confounded with it.”

What then is the gospel? Campbell says there are only a few items which belong to it. These are faith, repentance, immersion, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. The gospel is thus the good news that turns men to Christ. They are then to be formed into congregations and instructed in the ordinances, manners, and customs of the Christian kingdom. New converts are to put under the government of the great King. This is the teaching of the Christian system. So it is the gospel that brings men into Christ; it is teaching that builds them up as Christians.

This conforms with what Campbell has said elsewhere about the work of an evangelist:

Evangelists constitute the living itinerant ministry of the church, sent abroad into the world and sustained in their labors by the church. They preach the word of life. They convert the world. They institute churches and set them in order. (Mill. Harb. 1853, p. 481).

Evangelists—though a class of public functionaries created by the church do not serve it directly, but are sent out into the world, and constitute the third class of functionaries belonging to the Christian system. That evangelists are to separate into communities their own converts, teach and superintend them until they are in condition to take care of themselves, is as unquestionably a part of the office of all evangelist as praying, preaching, or baptizing. (Christian System, p. 86).

In the 1830 essay Campbell explains the difference between the gospel and the apostolic epistles:

Let the proclaimers themselves remember that the apostles wrote the Epistles to immersed disciples and to none else. The contents of them belong to disciples as such. From them, it is true, they can draw arguments to illustrate, prove, and enforce the gospel as did the Apostles from the ancient prophets. But it is not necessary to expound all the Epistles in proclaiming the ancient gospel.

Campbell is saying that the New Testament scriptures are one thing while the gospel is something else. While this may be apparent enough to many of our readers, it needs to be said that the failure to see this distinction is at the root of many ills within discipledom. For instance, many of our southern brethren argue that to be a loyal gospel preacher one must be right on all the doctrines of the New Testament scriptures. They will argue that the gospel includes all the New Testament and thus they base their idea of fellowship on this misconception. They are right in insisting that it is the gospel that gives us fellowship with each other in Christ, but they are wrong in believing that fellowship entails doctrinal agreement on all that the New Testament teaches.

It is the contention of this journal that unity of all Christians can be achieved through the gospel. When men believe the one fact that Jesus is Saviour and obey the one act of immersion into Christ they are united. This is fellowship, which is a state. Fellowship is not dependent on agreement in doctrinal matters. Instrumental music, premillennialism, and congregational cooperation are doctrinal issues that are not to be confused with the gospel of Christ. One can be wrong on a hundred doctrinal matters and yet be a faithful preacher of the gospel. One faction among us argues that others are not true to the gospel because they have a Sunday School. Another fission contends that the use of cups for the Lord’s Supper is a departure from the gospel. A “gospel preacher” is therefore a person who is right on every New Testament subject!

There is further confusion in the use for the term evangelist. Many of the non-instrumental churches call their hired pastor an evangelist. Signs in from of the buildings will identify the resident minister as an evangelist. The minister will tell you that he is an evangelist because he preaches the gospel. By further inquiry you will learn that he believes that he is preaching the gospel when he is speaking on any or every subject in the New Testament. To teach about prayer is to preach the gospel, according to these men. This explains why their idea of fellowship is so mixed up. Since men must obey the gospel to be right with God, and since the gospel inc1udes all the New Testament, then it is necessary to conform everyone to a “Church of Christ” interpretation of all the scriptures in order for them to be right in heaven’s eyes.

Thus preaching the gospel and teaching the apostles’ doctrine are confused by many of our people. Nearly all Disciples misuse the term preach. To preach is to herald the good tidings, which always has as its express purpose the induction of people into Christ. To teach is to instruct the saints how to live and worship. The failure to see this distinction has distorted our whole concept of evangelism.

Campbell was well aware of the vitality of the distinction between preaching and teaching, gospel and doctrine. He was a much older man, 67 to be exact, when he pronounced the following to the Christian Missionary Society:

Preaching the gospel and teaching the converts are as distinct and distinguishable as enlisting an army and training it, or as creating a school and teaching it. Unhappily for the church and the world, this distinction, if at all conceded as legitimate, is obliterated or annulled in almost all protestant Christendom.

In the discharge of the duties for this work the evangelist must properly and fully understand the whole oracles of God, and clearly distinguish the difference between preaching and teaching Jesus Christ. There is no mere speculative distinction. It was appreciated, fully understood and acted upon, or carried out, in the apostolic ministry. (Popular Lectures and Addresses. pp. 536.537).

It amazes me that Campbell worked out these legitimate distinctions long before they were popularized by Professor C. H. Dodd. who is given credit by modern scholars for discovering the New Testament ,kerugma. Dodd’s thesis is that didache (teaching) is ethical instruction, while kerugma (preaching) is the proclamation of the gospel to the lost. Even more recently Allan Richardson in his Theological Wordbook of the Bible puts it this way: “In the New Testament preaching has nothing to do with the delivery of sermons to the converted, which is what it usually means today, but it always concerns the proclamation of the glad tidings of God to the non-Christian world.” But Campbell saw all this and made it imperative to the Restoration long before Dodd and Richardson were born. And yet many of our own brethren refuse to acknowledge these distinctions. I suppose it is because they fear the implications. One implication is that the position of “minister” or “pastor’ may well be questioned. Another is that the work of the elders, who arc indeed responsible for the didache in a congregation, is badly neglected. Campbell would tell us that we have displaced the true pastor system of God, which is the rule of elders, for a professional clergy system. We hire men to preach to the church, something that never happened in a New Testament congregation.

Even though Campbell preached the gospel often this did not make him an evangelist. He believed that an evangelist is one who is set apart by the church to preach, baptize, develop congregations and appoint elders. This is why he encouraged the Mahoning Association to send Walter Scott out as an evangelist. He acknowledged Scott as an evangelist while he realized that he himself was an editor, teacher and reformer.

Let us not minimize the distinctions that the Bible makes. Consistently throughout the scriptures a clear distinction is made between these ideas, And as Campbell stated “these are no mere speculative distinctions.” They are vital to a restoration of the ancient order. We will not make much progress toward a fellowship of all Disciples until we learn what the gospel is. The same is true of a school whose teachers have not learned the difference between enrolling students and teaching them. That would be some school. Yes, and we’ve got some brotherhood!

A THEOLOGIAN ON BAPTISM

A recent selection of the Evangelical Book Club was Charles C. Ryrie’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Dr. Ryrie, who is president of the Philadelphia College of the Bible, has of course set forth many points of value for the student of the New Testament. His handling of the New Testament teaching on baptism, however, I wish to question—the point in dispute is the relation of baptism to salvation or the remission of sins.

Ryrie contends that “baptism was not unto salvation but on the basis of salvation.” He argues that “in every instance the reason for being baptized was that salvation had already been experienced.” These statements are postulated with the usual fundamentalistic certainty. There seems to be no question in his mind but what he has it all figured out. There is no effort made to give the evidence that remission of sins is in some way contingent on baptism.

In his treatment of Acts 2:38, for instance, he assures his readers that “this is no exception” to his argument on baptism. Ryrie thinks that when Peter said, “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission or sins,” he meant that baptism was because of sins already forgiven. He sees no difficulty in the face that in both Greek and English whatever is true of baptism in this passage is also true of repentance. Peter tells his hearers to repent. Why? So that they might be forgiven—and there could be no forgiveness without it! He likewise commands baptism. Why? The reason is the same. The same grammar that connects “remission of sins” to repentance connects it to baptism. If Ryrie makes “for” (eis in Greek) mean “because of” in the case of baptism, then logic demands that he do the same with repentance. But he would hardly have a theology that teaches one to repent because he is forgiven. Acts 2:38 shows that repentance is in order to the remission of sins. It likewise makes baptism in order to remission.

Dr. Ryrie probably has Thayer’s lexicon in his library. On page 94, under his treatment of the verb baptize, Thayer quotes in Greek the phrase ‘for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 and interprets it “to obtain the forgiveness of sins.” And Thayer is but one among the many scholars who make it cleat that when Peter commanded the Jews to “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” he was telling them that both repentance and baptism are conditions to pardon.

But Ryrie need nor go to the scholars to find reasons for questioning his position. If he is truly “Evangelical” in his view of the Bible, then he can call upon scripture to interpret scripture. For example, in Matt. 26:28 Jesus speaks of “my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” is the same in both Greek and English as it is in Acts 2:38. Ryrie would think it absurd to say that Jesus shed his blood because of the remission of sins. He would insist that eis (for) in this instance must be interpreted as meaning with a view to or in order to. So let it be in Acts 2:38.

Then there are other uses of the phrase, such as Mark 1:4 where John is described as “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” that further indicate that Ryrie’s interpretation is ill-advised. If John’s baptism was with a view to forgiveness, why should not the same language be understood the same way when used by the apostle Peter? Too, the idea that baptism is a necessary part of regeneration harmonizes with all that the New Testament teaches on the subject. While our theologian contends that “in every instance” baptism comes after salvation, the facts appear to suggest the exact opposite—that whenever baptism and salvation have any connection in a passage, baptism always comes before salvation. Let us test this.

In Mk. 16:16 we have “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Here baptism comes before salvation. This passage alone contradicts Ryrie’s generalization that “in every instance the reason for being baptized was that salvation had already been experienced.” Acts 22:16 also contradicts him. Here a sinner is told to “Rise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” Baptism first, then salvation. Titus 3:5 is still another, for here it says: ‘He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” Here salvation comes after baptism. John 3: and Eph. 5:26 are similar passages, for, as in Titus 3:5, these references show that baptism is the “washing” that is part of obeying Christ. The “washing” is always toward remission, never because of remission. Heb. 10:22 and 1 Cor. 6:11 further show that the “washing” is the baptism that points toward the cleansing that is in Christ.

The expression “into Christ” is significantly employed in connection with baptism. Rom. 6:3 says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Paul assumes that the Romans realized that they had been baptized into Christ. He wanted them to realize also that the same obedience put them into Christ’s death. Dr. Ryrie has not yet accepted Paul’s statement that it is in baptism that one gets into Christ. Gal. 3:27 also speaks of being baptized into Christ.

Dr. Ryrie in a footnote turns to Robertson’s Word Pictures to substantiate the view that Acts 2:38 shows baptism to be “because of” remission. Robertson goes to Matt. 12:41 where it says that Nineveh “repented at” (eis) the preaching of Jonah. He argues that Nineveh repented “because of Jonah’s preaching; therefore eis should have the same force in Acts 2:38. Robertson concludes his comment on Acts 2:38 with, “I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and, for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.”

It is true that Nineveh repented because of Jonah’s preaching, but there is a question as to whether this is the idea of Matt. 12:41. A Greek word meaning because (hoti) is used in this passage, but it comes before the use of eis; that is “Nineveh will arise at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; because (hoti) they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.” If eis were used where hoti is used, Robertson would have a stronger case. Surely he would not want to have the passage read: because they repented because of the preaching of Jonah. There is no instance in the New Testament that I have found where eis could ever mean “because of”. In reading the several pages on eis in such a source as Thayer’s lexicon one will not find any such meaning given. This preposition always has the force of toward or with a view to or in order to or into. It always is prospective and never retrospective, as Ryrie and Robertson would have it. Robertson is a responsible source of authority and I respect his scholarship, but on this point he is simply wrong. The world of scholarship is against him.

Then what does Matt. 12:41 mean? Literally it says that Nineveh repented into the preaching of Jonah. “The meaning is that they repented so that they followed the course of life which the preaching prescribed.” (McGarvey) A similar use is John baptizing “into repentance,” meaning “toward a life of reformation.”

So much for Greek and Ryrie’s theology. The point that troubles me is why we must have this kind of misunderstanding about baptism. The testimony of the early church shows that for several centuries baptism was accepted as a necessary part of regeneration. It is only in the Augustinian and Reformation theology when “faith only” became creedal that baptism lost ground. If the Evangelicals mean business about recovering Bible truths, then they should approach the subject of baptism with more weightiness than does Ryrie. I cannot help but feel that extreme and indefensible notions about baptism have pushed modern theologians too far in the other direction. They seem to think that if baptism is accepted as part of the plan of salvation or as a necessary element in the regenerative process that it would mean that the sinner is saved by his own works rather than by God’s mercy.

Baptism is the means given of God whereby the sinner can make an active response to saving grace. The act of baptism is the response of faith. While 1 Pet. 3:21 does say that “baptism saves us,” it does not mean, of course, that there is saving magic in water. But it does mean that in the act of being baptized the sinner shows that be believes the fact of Christ. Perhaps we Disciples have erred in trying to convert people to baptism instead of to Christ. But the fact remains that the Bible makes baptism necessary to the salvation experience. The New Testament reveals that all the believers were baptized and that it was for the remissions of sins. Anyone who loves the Bible will not want to change that.

I am going to see to it that Dr. Ryrie gets a copy of this issue of the journal, and it is only fair that he should be permitted to make some comments in reply if he would like.
 

OUR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL SYSTEM

A student in one of the “Church of Christ” colleges wrote me that a professor of the religion department had given him some copies of my publications with the understanding that he would deny any connection with them if the word got out. The professor thought that the student would find a ‘kindred spirit” in Leroy Garrett, but due to the academic climate of the institution it would be necessary for the professor to disclaim any connection if what he had done should become known.

Another letter is from a professor at a “Church of Christ” college who explains that he is being forced to resign due to some of his unorthodox views. His “disgression” apparently centers in his conviction that the Kingdom of God on earth involves more than the “Church of Christ.” His letter states that the president is under pressure to get rid of him due to the “strong feelings” of some students and Bible faculty people. The professor himself does not teach in the field of religion, but he is nonetheless expected to utter the same shibboleths that have long been traditional. He writes, “I need not tell you about the effects of such pressures; you know them as well as anyone on earth. In short, after several years of service here, I have reached a point where I cannot continue without giving up intellectual honesty altogether.”

In still another of our colleges there is the rule that no one can serve on the faculty unless he is a member of the “Church of Christ.” I have noticed ads in the brotherhood papers to the effect that this institution needs professors in several fields, but it is made clear that applicants must be members of the right church. It has been a proud record of this college for many years that “100% of the faculty are members of the church,” which means of course the “Church of Christ.” I graduated from this college myself and while I am grateful for the many blessings that came to me as a student there, I now feel that it would have been a greater experience in liberal education had I been able to study under at least a few professors with a religious background different from my own.

The “Church of Christ” junior college that I attended had a history teacher who was a Baptist. He was a strange creature within the ranks of so-called “Christian Education.” I recall that the president was then under fire for having a Baptist on his faculty. A report in one of the church papers reveals that the present incumbent in the president’s chair felt such pressure for having this Baptist on the faculty that he explained to the poor fellow that he would not be able to retain him if he remained a Baptist. Consequently the historian was immersed by the president with proper ‘Church of Christ” ceremony and now everybody is happy, except perhaps the Baptists.

Pepperdine College in Los Angeles is the one “Church of Christ” institution that seemed to be of a different attitude. It was less “Church of Christ” than any. This may be one reason why it became accredited at the outset while all the others waited fifty years for accreditation. For years Pepperdine was to some extent ‘blackballed” by the brethren due to its “liberal” teaching, while all along the orthodox schools were claimed to be institutions of liberal education! Anyway, to make a long story short, recent events at Pepperdine reveal to me that there is now a concerted effort to bring Pepperdine into line. The “modernists” (or at least one of them) have resigned and are now teaching in “Disciple” colleges. The rather independent-thinking president has been replaced by an orthodox “Church of Christ” pastor. The “Church of Christ” representation in the student body, which for years was far too low for a brotherhood institution, is now improving. It now shows every sign of becoming orthodox.

It is nor only the non-instrument brotherhood that is guilty of parochialism. There is a rash of Bible Colleges among the Independents. I can hardly keep up with all of them. A new one seems to spring up every month or so. These are parochial institutions in that they exist for the purpose of preserving the narrow interpretations of their particular party. They are even divisive in that they encroach themselves upon our larger brotherhood to the point of “taking over’ congregations by means of placing a “Bible College man” in the pulpit. Here in Illinois the Bible College group is not content for our congregations to be what they have been for the past one hundred years. By getting one of their men into the pulpit, which is often done clandestinely, they seek to get the church to renounce all connections with other elements of our disciple brotherhood. A church becomes loyal, they say, when it no longer cooperates with the ecclesiastical machinery that they oppose and when it adopts that narrowness that makes it possible to condemn all religious establishments beside its own. It takes parochial education to develop this kind of spirit.

These schools employ only those faculty people that are of their particular persuasion. They keep their students four, five or six years, passing out numerous degrees (none of which is accredited), and they build sideboards for their minds lest they get out of the path of orthodoxy. The students are not really free. One example of an insignificant nature points to the kind of slavery I speak of. The graduating class of one of these Bible Colleges voted that Leroy Garrett should be its commencement speaker. Some of the fellows had been reading some of my publications and thought it might spice things up to have me around. Even though the leaders of this particular school are among my friends, it is needless to say that they could not possibly invite me to speak on such an occasion. The reason is simple: I am not of their party; I have not crawled into their stall. These schools are as parochial as the Roman Catholics or Missouri Synod Lutherans ever dared to be. They all believe that “error” has no rights. Even though this Bible College had indoctrinated that class of seniors for several years, they could hardly afford for me to have them for forty minutes, even though the students themselves elected to hear me. The Communists have a similar doctrine of allowing people to vote however they please so long as they vote the way the party wants them to vote! Since this is America I have the opportunity of reaching people through the printed page who are behind the purple curtain of parochialism. I am reminded, however, of the ‘Church of Christ” preacher in the southland who waved one of my publications before his congregation and instructed them not to read it. The preacher, however, continued to read my heresy!

One of the evils growing out of our parochial school system is that the education is not truly liberal as it claims to be. If a college must have its science, psychology, sociology and religion taught only by those of its own sectarian persuasion, it is doubtful if the students are getting a broad education. Can these colleges give a good, thorough, objective presentation of the organic evolutionary theory or must it be taught with a “Bible College” approach? Can they make a serious, sincere, searching approach to the documentary hypothesis of Old Testament literature, or as to whether there is a Second Isaiah, or as to whether the book of Daniel was written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes rather than by the prophet Daniel in the sixth century B. C.? Can they seriously entertain the problem of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles or the Synoptic Problem? Can they take the thinking of men like Bultmann, Barth, Niebuhr, or Tillich and handle them as scholars should?

I realize that such problems are discussed sometime, but in what way are they discussed? The priestly professor in a Roman Catholic institution will discuss the question of birth control. But how? I am convinced that in many of our institutions some of the great issues in the world of scholarship must be handled in a “Bible College” fashion. For instance it would not be likely that in a “Church of Christ” college an instructor would be free to be uncertain about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, yea not even about the question of instrumental music or the absolute claims of his party. Even in an institution that claims to be liberal he could not express his honest doubts! Notice that in the illustration given at the outset of this editorial that one of these professors was under fire because he thought maybe God might have some children who had not yet heard of the “Church of Christ” or the Gospel Advocate.

I do not intend to imply that a professor cannot have strong convictions and teach those convictions. I am only saying that his teaching should not be slanted to fit some party standard. John Stuart Mill in his Essay on Freedom tells us how one can teach his own views and at the same time give other views equal chance with the students. An opposing view, Mill asserts, should be presented with the same force as one’s own view. The view should be presented as much like its own advocate would present it as is humanly possible. The approach should be kept as objective as possible and the academic atmosphere should be free. Students should be at liberty to decide for themselves. There should be no institutional pressure to believe a certain way. Let truth have its way. Thus many questions might be left open for further study. But this is not the way of parochial education.

The scare of “modernism” is part of the problem. A man might be “written up” in the papers if he is not the good little sheep who sits quietly in his stall bleating at the proper cadence. Many teachers learn to keep their views to themselves. They are afraid to say what they really think. I suppose they rationalize that it would do no good anyhow. I can see signs of men wanting to be free. More and more men are participating in professional organizations where they mingle with more liberal minds. Many of them are taking advanced degrees at top universities. And yet they serve in institutions where even a devout Baptist cannot be on the faculty!

I have been with a number of these men in graduate school. I was in one situation where a professor from Abilene called on an Episcopal minister for prayer. I knew at the time that such a thing could hardly happen in Abilene. I know it must be a problem for a man to leave the free atmosphere of Chicago, Boston or New Haven and go back into the caves of Nashville or Abilene and shackle himself once more to his party. The situation needs more pity than censure and that is the way I feel as I write these words. While I am opposed to this tyranny over the minds of my people, I nonetheless understand why it is. With many it is a matter of economic security. Others are peace loving men and do not want trouble. But many of them would like to be free. Their liberator is Jesus Christ. When he is placed above party the problem will be solved.

How are we to explain the rise of parochial education among the heirs of the Restoration Movement. It is ironical that the tragedy of parochialism would develop within the tradition of Alexander Campbell. Even when he first organized his college at Bethany in 1840 he had one member of a denomination on his small faculty of five professors. From the very beginning he had Presbyterians and other denominationalists on his board of trustees. In view of his plea for unity Campbell also arranged for the College Hall to be used for religious worship and instruction every Sunday, ‘to be performed by respectable ministers of the various denominations.”

The big difference between Campbell and my parochial brethren is that he never intended to establish a religious institution when he founded Bethany. He specifically states that “It is not a theological school, founded upon human theology, nor a school of divinity, founded upon the Bible; but a literary and scientific institution founded upon the Bible as the basis of all true science and true learning.” Campbell clinched it when he wrote into the charter the following: “And be it further enacted, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as at any time to authorize the establishment of a theological professorship in the said college.” There has been at least one effort to remove this from the college’s charter, but without success.

This is in marked contrast to the charters of the parochial institutions among us where it is stipulated that the trustees must be members of the “Church of Christ”, that the schools are set up in order to train ministers, and, as in the case of at least one such charter that it is possible for a gathering of “Church of Christ” brethren to dispose of the trustees by vote.

The explanation is, therefore, that since Campbell we disciples have splintered into parties and have established religious institutions (colleges) as handmaidens to our party policies. Campbell’s aim of “a literary and scientific institution” has hardly been our idea. Our parochial schools have been set up to teach our peculiar interpretations and to train clergy after our own party lines. Herein is our error. This is why that even in our so-called liberal arts institutions there is an anti-intellectual spirit. Some of these schools are in fact theological seminaries with a curriculum slanted to fit the needs of a religious party. They produce party men. They exist primarily to promote what may be called a Church of Christ-ism. This explains why they must have only party men on their faculty. A person who is a liberal thinker would get in their way. Its relationship to a sect within discipledom necessitates that they be provincial, parochial, and sectarian in education.

In all wings of the great disciple brotherhood there are theological schools that train clergy after their own kind. Despite our historic plea for the priesthood of all believers we nonetheless have those institutions that serve as handmaidens to the clergy. In our struggle for the restoration of the ancient order we must continually question the place of such institutions. Once we make the church what it ought to be as God’s institution for Christian Education we will then have no such distinction as clergy and laity. Every congregation will be a seminary and all God’s people will be clergy. Let us abolish the laity by making all our people ministers.

Parochialism will end when partyism ends and not before.

WISDOM FROM WESLEY

Orthodoxy, or right opinion, is at best but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part at all. I will not quarrel with you about my opinion. Only see that your heart be right toward God, and that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ; that you love your neighbor, and walk as your Master walked; and I desire no more. I am sick of opinions; I am weary to hear them. My soul loathes this frothy food. Give me solid and substantial religion; give me an humble, gentle love of God and man, a man full of mercy and good fruits.

For opinions and terms let us not destroy the work of Dost thou love and fear God? It is enough! I give thee the hand of fellowship.