Restoration Review: Leroy Garrett, Editor

A DAY WITH THE JESUITS

Through the kindness of Professor Edward Gannon, S. J., of Wheeling College, it was my pleasure to spend an exciting day at that Jesuit institution of higher learning. The occasion was the public examination of students in philosophy. I served as one of the examiners of the two students on trial. Since the medieval age the Jesuits have subjected their novices to rigid examinations before a board of examiners. The students take their places on the platform before the faculty and student body. In the Wheeling examination there were some 400 students and faculty (mostly priests) looking on. The examiners took turns in questioning the examinees. The idea is that the students should be able to defend their philosophical propositions under such pressure. I thought they did very well, especially since they were examined by professors from other colleges.

I was impressed with the validity of this device for modern education. Hemingway defines courage as “grace under pressure,” and formal education should stimulate such courage. Our students have too easy a time of it. They should have the tough discipline of writing out their conclusions in clear, concise terms, and then defending them before exacting examiners. Education is more than a gathering of information; it involves an intelligent response to life’s difficult problems. The educated man is articulate. He can make a reasonable defense of what he believes. My experience at Wheeling College convinced me that only a few of today’s college students are critical enough in their thinking and articulate enough in their ideas to perform with grace under the pressure of a public examination. Intellectual conversation has yet to break through the banalities of our time-honored superficialities.

And of course I thought of the great brotherhood of disciples, wondering how some of us would do before the scrutinizing eyes of an unmerciful examination committee. Some of our affirmations that are heralded over TV and radio might appear shallow when subjected to logical analysis. A committee would not have to be expert in the Bible in order to detect our fallacious reasoning and unwarranted conclusions. Many of us reason in circles and make hasty generalizations. We are often vague and use language with double meanings. The logician would not let us get by with these things. He would ask us to define our terms, and it is here that many of us would get in trouble. It would be interesting to see a professor in one of our Tennessee colleges defend the proposition “The religious body known to me and my brethren as The Church of Christ is the New Testament Church.”

How would some of us do in writing out our position on fellowship and then defending it before public examiners? We might even have difficulty with our propositions on the inspiration of the Bible and the unity of the church. Affirmations on authority in religion would be another tough one. There are so many ideas that we have not followed through. We repeat the arguments of past generations without much of an understanding of the real issues. Paul tells us that “the kingdom of heaven is not talk,” but I think he would not say that about understanding. Talk is one thing; understanding is something else.

But back to my day with the Jesuits. It happened to be Election Day, and I was wondering if all the Jesuits had cast an early morning vote for Kennedy, for they were wearing their tags, ‘Tve voted today, have you?” But there were several of them for Nixon, some complaining that Kennedy was promising the moon and that a vote for him was a vote for socialism. One priest said frankly that Kennedy was “a lousy Catholic,” and yet he admitted that there would be a substantial number of Catholics that would vote for him simply because of his religion. A lay Catholic at our lunch table was an avid supporter of Nixon, but complained that in his efforts to get votes for Nixon he found many Catholics irate over the anti-Catholic campaign. He said that he knew a number of Republican Catholics who were going to vote for Kennedy because of the religious issue. When I explained the misgiving of so many Americans about a Roman Catholic in the White House, my hosts seemed to understand perfectly. But they insisted that the history of Europe and South America respecting unhappy church-state relationships does not represent the thinking of American Roman Catholics.

One priest pointed to the situation in Puerto Rica where Roman Catholics rebelled against the bishop’s mandate to vote a certain way. His point was that Catholics generally think for themselves and will not tolerate even a bishop telling them how to vote. A Roman Catholic must believe just 21 things, and voting is not one of them. When I pointed to the conditioning of the Roman Catholic child to think and act as “a good Catholic,” the priests admitted that there is such conditioning, and that it is difficult for the child to act against such training, but that the same could be said for many Protestant children. We talked about freedom, and when I argued that the Roman church is as totalitarian and unfree as Communism, the reply was that the Roman Catholic is free to choose the authority of his church. He can leave the church if he doesn’t want to practice birth control, they affirmed.

But is a Roman Catholic really free to think for himself on such issues as birth control and eating meat on Friday? Think of the threats and reprisals he faces in either leaving his church or acting at variance with its doctrines! The priests carry the keys to death and to hades; the pope controls the destiny of those in purgatory. To all such remarks the priests would point to the credentials of Roman Catholicism, for, after all, their authority has been handed down from Christ. This they call a question of fact: if one believes in the credentials, he can be a Roman Catholic; if not, he cannot be. That was the substance of their argument; they accept the credentials of Roman Catholicism, which make all the parts fit together without difficulty. And one should not deceive himself into believing that the Jesuits, Rome’s illustrious missionary order, cannot make a logical and philosophical defense of their position. It makes all the sense in the world if one grants the basic premise, the credentials given to the church by Christ.

I felt somewhat at home in talking with the Jesuits in that some of the basic lines of thought are like those of my “Church of Christ” brethren, who also have all the answers. My brethren may not be as logical and as philosophical, and certainly not as articulate or educated, but they know just as many of the answers. They also have the credentials, for they too are the Church of Christ. I asked a priest if he believed that the Roman Church is identical in faith and practice to the New Testament church. His answer was yes, though the doctrinal development was gradual, which means that everything in the Roman Church was inherent in the primitive church. My “Church of Christ” brethren do better than this, for they affirm that we are the New Testament church without qualification. They even find the located minister in the apostolic church! I have heard them argue that the church at Ephesus had a resident minister just like the churches in Nashville have. Paul and Peter would be perfectly at home should they step into the Broadway church in Lubbock. Brother, that is identity! The Jesuits are going to have to get up early to beat that.

Such experiences are good for those of us who are far removed from the Roman Catholic world. We need to sit with those who differ with us in order to understand their thinking. It has not been many years ago when it would have been difficult for me to listen both respectfully and interestedly to a Jesuit priest. While I still occasionally sense the old antagonisms welling up within me when sitting with Roman clergy, I have about reached the place where I can distinguish between my prejudices and my principles.

William James, the famous Harvard psychologist and philosopher, insisted that the free person is one who can imagine foreign states of mind. It helps me in talking with priests and nuns to practice such empathy—think like they think by putting myself in their place. It is a humbling experience. Recently I moderated a radio educational program for St. Joseph’s Academy in Wheeling, W. Va., a Roman Catholic high school for girls. The nuns with whom I visited on this occasion were obviously devout and dedicated women, and their love for the girls was equally obvious. The questions that plague me are: Am I as devout? Am I as dedicated? Am I as willing to give my life to what I believe to be right? Seeing the nuns at work made me realize more vividly that in the great monolithic system of Roman Catholicism there are many wonderful and dedicated people whose lives are surrendered to the needs of humanity. There is indeed so much good along with the bad. Perhaps we can come much nearer correcting the bad (and understanding it!) if we are willing to look tenderly to the good.

But what am I doing? Am I suggesting that my readers have more contact with their Roman Catholic neighbors, to get acquainted with the local priest and have a chat with the sisters of St. Joseph? How naive can an editor get? I am writing to some people who would be reluctant to go to a Methodist service or have a Baptist minister over for dinner. Yea, I am writing to some who will nor even “fellowship” their own brethren in the Lord because of an organ, or cups, or premillennialism, or classes, or something. And here I am implying that such people might profit by a visit with Rome! Oh, well, editors are sometime idealistic. Maybe I’ve been reading too much of Plato. Then there is Ezekiel who has attracted some of my attention lately; you know, the prophet who sat with those in captivity.

Before leaving the Jesuits I should mention a concession that I felt compelled to make. In conceding to my clerical friend that protestantism may indeed be “a second rate religion,” I did not necessarily recognize Roman Catholicism as a first rate religion. I was told that protestantism is second rate because it does so little for its people, which may be true. Then the point was made that everyone is his own interpreter of scripture and thus his own authority, and so in protestantism there may be as many churches as there are people. Since there is no recognized authority there is endless division. Anybody can start his own church-and usually he does!

What is one to say in response to such talk? If he argues that the Bible is intelligible and as capable of being understood as most any other literature, the reply will be, “Then why all the differences?” If one accounts for the differences on grounds of either ignorance, prejudice or sectarian influences, the response will be, “Then are you and yours the only ones free of ignorance, prejudice and sectarianism?” If it is a matter of honest inquiry, then comes “Are you the only one who is honest?” So I do not make such statements, for I believe that most Protestants are reasonably intelligent, honest, and that they are all about equally influenced by sectarian traditions. Many are truth-seekers. I cannot believe that our differences are a matter of honesty and dishonesty or wanting the truth and not wanting it.

Much of the mess we have inherited. Without trying to figure out just how our fathers fouled things up, it is enough to realize that they indeed fouled things up — and dumped their mess into the laps of future generations. We were born and reared in this pluralistic religious world. We were nurtured as Baptists, Quakers, Mormons, and Presbyterians by parents who in turn got it from their parents. What are we to do about it? The answer certainly is not for some simpleton to say, “I am right, so we can all be united by joining me.” This is the way to add sin to sin. Nor is the Roman Church right in giving us a totalitarian answer.

Part of the answer may lie in a willingness to accept our divided state of affairs and seek to build unity amidst the diversity. Do we have to be together to be united? For a hundred years or more it may be necessary to continue worshipping in different buildings, adhering to different ecclesiastical governments, and following different orders of worship. The divergent traditions are so strongly established that it is foolish to suppose that they can be broken down in a generation or two. We must discover the one common denominator that will make us one in the Christ while we await the growth toward the one great Church of God on earth. Along with Alexander Campbell and the pioneers of the Restoration Movement I believe that common denominator is belief in Jesus the Christ. When one believes in Him and is baptized he is a Christian. Let all denominations recognize this as the basis of Christian unity. This one step will render creeds, confessions, traditions and opinions as of secondary importance. Does he believe the one fact that Jesus is the Christ and has he obeyed the one act of baptism into Christ? If so, he is a Christian and is to be honored as such by all. Some will continue to be Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, and Mormons for a long time to come. And admittedly this ought not to be. Obviously they ought to be what we are! But when we get right down to “the liver” of the problem we have to admit that these many denominations will still be around after we are all dead and gone. Fussing up a storm will not make it otherwise. Neither does it solve the problem by persuading a few people to leave their churches and join us. The denominations are here to stay, and they are made up of people just like us, people who love God and who want to go to heaven. The big question is what lasting contribution can we make to the unity of all Christians in our generation?

Well, I was not able to give the Jesuit priest a neat, tidy answer to the problem of division. Ten years ago I could have told him better than he could tell me. I can only say that the answer is to work within the framework of the existing churches. Partyism must end. We must correct the fallacy of longstanding that unanimity of doctrine is a prerequisite to unity. Fellowship must precede unity. The man in the other church may appear to be far away to me now, but as I come to realize that he loves the same Lord that I love, he seems much closer. It is not the doctrinal opinions that keep us separated, but it is my own failure to see that he is a child of God just as I am, despite the differences. This realization will make for real unity even while we yet worship in different places. We can then prayerfully work together as brothers for the consummation of God’s plan for his great Church of Christ among men.

PROPOSITIONS FOR PUBLIC EXAMINATION

I would like to see certain propositions subjected to public examination somewhat like the plan followed by the Jesuits, which is described with some detail in the preceding editorial. It would be all right for these affirmations to be debatted one by one, but our people have difficulty maintaining in debate the dispassion that is required to give these matters the critical and objective examination they deserve. Yet I am not averse to the controversial approach, so if anyone wishes to debate any or all of these propositions, either written or oral, I shall be glad to consider it. But a public examination by a plurality of expert examiners would be more in keeping with the sophisticated criticism hoped for in the formulation of the propositions.

This means that I should be pleased to go before any reputable group within the brotherhood, large or small, and face questioning. The examiners would be free to ask anything relevant to the issue at hand. They could demand of me any definition of terms used, clarification of any vague language, illustrations of any point made, authentication of sources, and substantiation of conclusions. I should be happy for the examiners to be college or university professors, historians, psychologists, elders or preachers, or any group of brethren or interested citizens. I think it would be especially appropriate for any or all of these statements to be examined before an audience of college students or seminarians. I am willing to go to any college or congregation at my own expense for this purpose.

Lest this suggestion be misinterpreted as a mere propaganda device (“He only wants an audience to teach his heretical ideas”), I should be willing for the columns of this journal to be the medium for written examination. My purpose is to stimulate more intellectual conversation among Disciples relative to some of our most serious problems. My mission is also to learn the truth myself. I am willing to be embarrassed if it is a means of discovering errors in my thinking.

I know that many of “the preacher boys” in the colleges would appreciate sitting in on such an examination. Their professors should be eager for them to have such an experience, especially since it would be a means of exposing error and solidifying their own position. My people have been rather pronounced in their claims of being the true church and having the whole truth. Such claimants should occasionally have a workout just to keep in practice. Since these propositions include challenges to the traditional interpretations of the brethren, I think there should be a number who are willing to give them a critical analysis.

When I say I will go anywhere at my own expense, I mean just that. I may not conduct myself with the sophistication of a medievel monk before his venerable ecclesiastics, but I promise to behave as one who has come to learn rather than to teach. To illustrate my conciliatory attitude about this matter, I should be willing to go even to Freed-Hardeman College for such an examination. I would rather they not put me in jail (as I recall one “examination” ending that way with one of their visitors), but I shall gladly go, jail or no jail.

Here are the propositions:

1. Concerning the Fellowship of the Saints and Christian Unity

(a) Christian unity prevails when those who are “in Christ” accept each other as brothers.

(b) Those who have believed the one fact that Jesus is the Christ and have obeyed the one act of immersion into Christ are “in Christ” or Christians.

(c) This belief in the one fact and obedience to the one act are the only conditions of Christian fellowship and thus the only basis for Christian unity.

(d) Fellowship is not, therefore, contingent on doctrinal agreement, for if one is “in Christ”, he is to be received as a brother even though he may be in error about many things.

(e) It is faith in the Christ that is the basis of salvation, not how much one might know about the so-called “plan of salvation” or “steps in becoming a Christian.” It is not how much one might know about the role of baptism that lends validity to his salvation, but whether he believes in the Christ and obeys the gospel.

(f) Legalism is a great enemy of unity and fellowship. One is guilty of legalism when he makes any matter a condition of fellowship that the Lord has not made a condition of salvation.

(g) Heresy has no necessary relationship to doctrinal error or “false doctrine.” Heresy is fostered by the party spirit and ends in division. An heretic is not one who teaches error (though an heretic often teaches error), but is rather one who seeks to divide the body of Christ for his own self-aggrandizement, which may possibly be done by teaching no error. It is attitude toward “the unity of the Spirit” that makes one an heretic, not the truth or error of his doctrine.

(h) Members within a congregation may enjoy fellowship with each other despite their differences on biblical interpretation; and so congregations may enjoy fellowship with each other regardless of doctrinal disparity. If those in the congregations are immersed believers, they are to be honored as the Lord’s people, even though they may be known by such sectarian appellations as Baptist Church, Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, or Church of God.

(i) It is not, therefore, right names, right millennial views, right kind of singing, right order of worship, right government, right ministry, right items of worship (though all important questions) that make fellowship possible. Fellowship between churches is determined only by the relationship that they sustain with Jesus Christ, and not by how many things they may be right or wrong upon respecting doctrine.

(j) While doctrine is vitally important to the edification of the saints, and though it is desirable that substantial doctrinal agreement be achieved, it nonetheless follows that doctrinal differences should never cause a breach of fellowship.

(k) A congregation’s loyalty to the Christ and to the truth is not to be measured by an arbitrary list of rights and wrongs, for a church is loyal if it loves the Christ and is sincerely seeking the truth. It may be wrong in many of its teachings and practices, and yet right in the thing that matters most-its deep and abiding love for Jesus.

(1) Error in a congregation is, of course, undesirable. The teaching program of the congregation is to be a search for truth and the elimination of error. But this problem of error within a congregation is irrelevant to the question of fellowship.

(m) Endorsement of a congregation’s doctrinal position is not to be confused with fellowship. Two congregations (say a Baptist Church and a Church of Christ) may enjoy Christian fellowship since they are both “in Christ,” and yet they may not endorse one another doctrinally.

2.Concerning the Corporate Worship of the Saints

(a) Singing in the New Testament churches may or may not have been congregational. The passages instructing the saints to sing more probably refer to individual singing. Congregational singing is, therefore, a matter of expediency. A congregation may choose to have no singing at all, or perhaps solos or choirs, rather than congregational singing. This is a matter of the choice of the congregation and should be treated as such.

(b) The dispute over instrumental music is, therefore, often argued from a false premise.

(c) Yet the presence of instruments of music in the corporate worship of the saints is an evil, though not necessarily a sin. It is an evil because it is offensive to many sincere Christians and because it makes unity and fellowship more difficult to realize. It is not a sin because it is neither a matter of a willful ignorance of or rebellion to the teaching of Christ, for the New Testament has nothing to say about instrumental music. This proposition presupposes that the instrument is used strictly as an aid.

(d) Being an evil, the instruments of music in the congregations of the Restoration Movement should be eliminated. But being an evil instead of a sin, the anti-instrumental congregations should change both their attitude and their arguments concerning the matter.

(e) Congregational collection of money during the Lord’s Day assembly is unscriptural, though not antiscriptural. Scriptures are misinterpreted (notably 1 Cor. 16:2) to teach that saints must give into a common treasury on the Lord’s Day. This tends to be legalistic in that it is the occasion for a false standard of loyalty. The scriptures give us no instructions about how a congregation is to gather funds. It is a matter of congregational liberty. A congregation could select a secretary and instruct its membership to mail their offerings to him either weekly, monthly, or yearly. Those who are paid once a year, like the farmer, might choose to make their offering once a year. There is no biblical plan concerning the how or when of congregational fund-raising. There are principles of giving, yes, but it is a farce to make an offering on Sunday an “item of worship” and as a test of scriptural worship. While a congregation may take an offering on Sunday, it should realize it does so as a matter of expediency rather than as a divine fiat.

(f) If a congregation chooses to erect a building, the most important part of the building is that set apart for the preaching of the gospel and the edification of the saints. The next most important part is the kitchen and social room.

(g) The Lord’s Supper is the greatest expression of fellowship. A congregation should be willing to receive into its fellowship anyone to whom it serves the Supper.

(h) It accords with scripture for the Bible to be read in the assembly of saints. More is said about reading to the church than is said about preaching to the church.

(i) Each congregation is free to determine its own plan for serving the Supper, whether in a plurality of cups or in only one container. This matter, like a public collection of money, is a matter of expediency.

(j) While it is highly probable that New Testament churches observed the Lord’s Supper on Sunday—on all Sundays and not regularly on any other day—it is not certain, nor are the scriptures conclusive that the Supper may be celebrated only on Sundays. In the light of the scriptures a congregation may choose to observe the Supper also on Thursdays, especially on special occasions. Once again it would be a matter of congregational liberty since we have no “thus saith the Lord.”

(k) A second serving of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening is a falsification of the function of the Supper as a congregational act. Since the breaking of bread was intended by the Christ as a corporate act, and not an individual act, the practice of individuals breaking bread apart from the assembly called for that purpose should be suspended.

(1) The Lord’s Supper should not be referred to as “the Communion,” for other expressions of worship ate also part of the communion of the saints. Giving could as well be called “the Communion” as the Lord’s Supper. The Supper is “a communion,” and is so designated in the scriptures.

3. Concerning the Ministry of the Ecclesia

(a) The ministry of the saints is based on the scriptural concept of the priesthood of all believers. Every Christian is to be a minister of Jesus Christ, each serving in that capacity that is most commensurate with his abilities.

(b) The ministry of the saints is reciprocal or mutual, based on the principle enunciated by the Lord that one is called of God “to minister and not to be ministered to.” Mutual ministry takes many forms, teaching the word being only one of them. Other forms of ministry would be caring for the needy, giving alms, and hospitality.

(c) Mutual ministry is scripturally, socially, and psychologically sound. When the ministry of the body is truly reciprocal, with each member working according to his talents to the edification of all, it is as truly consistent with it s nature as it is for the physical body to find it s welfare in the proper function of every part.

(d) A professional system of ministry, such as the clergy or pastor system, is not only anti-scriptural, but it encourages the passivity of man and frustrates his communicative nature, which should be free to express itself in the congregation of saints.

(e) The pastor system thus brings about a condition within the body of Christ similar to the condition of the physical body when some of its members are kept in slings or casts and not permitted to function.

(f) There is no scriptural place for “the minister” in the New Testament ecclesia. Such an office not only lacks scriptural precedence, but it is a hindrance to the proper functions that are authorized.

(g) If the bishops or elders of a congregation do their work properly, there will be no place for the professional minister.

(h) In many instances the pastor system could be corrected by “the minister” serving in the eldership, thus sharing his pastoral role with the duly ordained, scriptual overseers. The elders would then supervise a mutual ministry that would make use of the talents of the congregation.

(i) In other instances the pastor system could be corrected by “the minister” becoming an evangelist of the congregation, turning the pastoral work back to the elders themselves. In the event the eldership is not qualified to assume their responsibilities as ministers to the congregation, the evangelist’s first task would be to qualify them, thus equiping the church to take care of itself.

(j) Basically, the evangelistic office involves the preaching of the gospel, baptizing, forming disciples into congregations, training elders and ordaining them (but not appointing them), and so establishing the congregations that they are capable of doing their own work and reproducing others. He may also work with an established church, but either in some special capacity or as one sent forth by that congregation to start new churches or to aid such churches as may need his services. It is inconsistent to the evangelistic office for the evangelist to become “the resident minister” in a congregation of saints.

(k) The evangelist is an itinerant officer of the church. While he may live or have “headquarters” in a given place for a lifetime, his work as an evangelist involves “place to place” activity. It may be from house to house or person to person in the same city, or it may involve many cities and countries; but evangelistic work is not regular pastoral duties to a congregation, usually referred to as “local work.” The so-called “located minister” usually does what the elders should be doing.

(1) The “located minister” keeps a congregation dependent on some outsider. When one minister leaves, another must come in. This cannot be evangelistic work, for the evangelist labors to prepare a church to get along without him by qualifying men to serve as elders, anyone of whom is qualified to do what the “located minister” does.

(m) There is a significant difference between preaching and teaching, just as there is between gospel and doctrine. Preaching involves the telling of the story of salvation to the lost, the proclamation of the risen Christ as the answer to man’s sin. It has to do primarily with the facts of what God has done for man through the Cross. Teaching, on the other hand, is instruction in apostolic doctrine. Preaching enrolls students in the school of the Christ, while teaching is training in the curriculum outlined by the apostles.

(o) The same distinctions hold for gospel and doctrine. Generally speaking, the gospel is preached, while the apostle’s doctrine is taught. Elders, for instance, are told to be apt teachers, but not preachers. Evangelists, on the other hand, are primarily preachers. The evangelists proclaim the gospel and matriculate disciples by baptizing them; the elders take care of the churches by teaching doctrine.

(p) The book called the New Testament is not the gospel. It contains the gospel (the message of salvation), but most of it is doctrine. It is erroneous to say that all the New Testament is the gospel.

(q) Fellowship is dependent upon gospel, but not upon doctrine. By this I mean that we must all believe and obey the gospel to be in fellowship with Christ together. But this is not true of doctrine. We spend a lifetime studying, learning, and practicing doctrinal principles. We are all wrong in some of our interpretations from time to time. We are at different stages of growth; we see things differently. So doctrinal unanimity is not essential to fellowship, while obedience to the gospel is. One obeys the gospel when he believes in Christ and is baptized.

4. Concerning Congregations of the Restoration Movement

(a) The Restoration Movement has lost much of its impetus because it has evolved into parties and factions, each of which tends to exclude the others, and it has thus failed to continue as a movement within the church at large.

(b) The Restoration Movement was launched as an effort to bring about unity and to restore the ancient order within the church of Christ which was already in existence within divided Christendom.

(d) Some heirs of the Restoration Movement confuse the movement with the church itself. Consequently some groups among us are no longer unity movements, for they suppose that they themselves (and only themselves) are the church, and so they must plead for conformity to their own exclusivism rather than the unity for which Christ prayed.

(e) The movement to restore New Testament Christianity is unfinished; the task has just begun. We face no greater danger than the false assumption that in our congregations we have restored the faith and practice of the primitive ecclesia.

THE REAL CAUSE

Reports from two brotherhood publications will illustrate what I believe to be a fundamental error in our thinking as a people, an error that is responsible for untold division and hard feelings among brethren.

One of the reports is from Hammond, La., in a periodical called The Exhorter, published by brethren that are commonly referred to as premillennial. It tells of how an “amillennial church,” which called itself “the True Church of Christ” in advertisements, conducted a tent meeting in Amite, La., within the shadow of a 40-year-old Church of Christ of the premillennial persuasion. The “true Church of Christ” completely ignored the premillennial group, acting as if there were no Church of Christ in Amite at all. It was a mission meeting. When Sunday morning came, the missionary group conducted services under the tent, as if the congregation of disciples less than a block away did not even exist.

The other item comes from the Gospel Guardian, published in Lufkin, Texas, and representative of the anti-Herald of Truth party within the Church of Christ. The issue of November 3, 1960, tells of the “results” of the Herald of Truth controversy in Louisville, Ky. Three churches have either split or about to split; congregations are stealing members from each other; internal strife and division exist in several congregations; preachers who have long been friends are now alienated. The writer of the article, A. C. Grider of Louisville, sees a split coming in the Church of Christ “comparable to the division over premillennialism in this city several years ago.” He says that the Herald of Truth, a radio and TV program of gospel preaching, is the cause.

What is the real cause of such turmoil? Surely a group of sturdy and mature congregations will not be swept into a bedlam of biting and bickering just because a church down in Texas insists on promoting a big TV show. Surely preachers who have been friends for many years will not permit institutionally minded brethren to turn them into fighting partisans. Indeed, what is the cause for such unbrotherly conduct as that described in Amite, La.?

I believe I know what the trouble is, or at least I think I can put my finger on the basic difficulty, for I am conscious that there may be a combination of causes for such untoward circumstances. Before I state my case, however, I should point out that current methods of solving these problems will never prove successful, nor have such methods been successful at anytime in our long history. The methods now employed — debates, write-ups, name-calling, tape recordings — are used by both sides in order to pressure the other side into conformity. The idea is that all will be well if “those in error” will repent of their evil and take their stand with truth. The arguments are unending and repetitious, and the debates go on and on. Brethren call each other bad names; each side accuses the other side of causing division. Consequently our “laymen” find themselves on the treadmill of an ecclesiastical dialectic. And so they suppose that they are on the loyal side if their preacher can get the best of the argument. If a certain paper brands one a liberal or an anti or as disloyal or as a modernist, then surely it is the work of God to oppose such a one and withdraw your support from him.

For over fifty years our people have employed such methods, and for over fifty years we have been dividing and sub-dividing. And so it will continue to be as long as such methods are used. The past half century saw the Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches become so alienated that they now hardly speak to each other. The past fifty years has seen the Church of Christ divide several different ways — premillennialism, Sunday School, women teachers, institutionalism (colleges), and now another division is in the making. Such will be the case as long as we continue to commit the basic fallacy that I will now describe.

The fallacy I refer to is the equating of fellowship with endorsement. We err in supposing that if we accept a brother into the fellowship of Christ that this is tantamount to an endorsement of his doctrinal position. This is evident in the way our people will use these terms interchangeably. When a brother says, “I don’t fellowship him,” he seems to be saying that he does not endorse his position. And it works the other way: if a brother does not endorse a man, then he does not fellowship him.

While I am convinced that this is the error for us to seek to correct in our generation, I am also aware that it is a most difficult point to get across. Recently I explained to an old friend of mine why I can enjoy fellowship with Christian Church brethren even though I do not agree with them on several things. He countered with, “Yes, but how about instrumental music?” I explained that I do not endorse instrumental music in the corporate worship of the saints and that I would like to see it removed, but that this in no wise affected the fellowship I share with such saints. He then insisted that the instrument in worship is wrong. I replied that I thought so too. “Then how can you have fellowship with them?,” he demanded.

This circular reasoning is due to the fallacy of making endorsement mean what fellowship means. The logicians call this equivocation. When I pointed out to my friend that I do not endorse instrumental music in worship but can still enjoy fellowship with those who differ with me on that matter, he insisted that if I fellowship the people I endorse instrumental music. The same fallacy is at work in the instances reported in the two publications. The “true” Church Christ folk that held a mission meeting in Amite, La., within a stone’s throw of a premillennial church were probably as sincere and well-meaning as could be. They ignored the premillennialists because they do not endorse premillennialism. To have fellowship with them would be to endorse their false doctrine, and since we are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” the premills must be treated like everybody else that is wrong.

It is the same fallacy at Louisville. The Herald of Truth is wrong, says one. It is an expression of centralization, institutionalism, and unscriptural cooperation of churches. Since those who believe in (or endorse) Herald of Truth are wrong, he cannot fellowship them. All this means that the only way for our people to continue in fellowship with each other is for them to see everything alike. But this they have never done and never will do. This is why we have always been in confusion and always will be. Even those who recognize each other as faithful are woefully inconsistent, for they too have their differences.

Why is it not possible for the brethren in Louisville to resolve their difficulty by permitting some churches to support Herald of Truth and others to withold support, if they wish? One could say to another, “Our congregation believes that Herald of Truth is wrong due to the nature of the organization behind it. We cannot endorse it nor support it. Your congregation disagrees with us, and that is all right. We will be brethren just the same. Since each thinks the other is wrong about this, maybe we can arrange for some exchange of ideas about it, for we most certainly want to work together as much as possible. But in the meantime you go on and support it while we find other areas of service. But in any event we’ll keep right on loving each other and working together as much as possible.” This is impossible only because brethren suppose that if a man is wrong about something he can no longer be fellowshipped.

Brotherliness could be a reality in Amite, La., if the amills and premills could understand that fellowship is between persons rather than things. I can worship with a so-called “premillennial church” without believing or endorsing premillennialism. The doctrine has no relevance to our being “in Christ” and loving each other as fellow saints. A brother may be wrong about many things and still be a faithful child of God. Surely all of us are wrong about a number of things. If I know a brother is wrong, I can disagree with the wrong and yet accept him as a brother beloved. “As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him,” says Paul in Romans 14. In the same chapter he shows how men can disagree with each other doctrinally and yet accept each other as brothers.

Jesus loved us and died for us while we were wrong. His glorious fellowship does not depend upon our being right on everything doctrinally. “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) This indicates that fellowship is a relationship that we sustain with the Saviour. Paul speaks of our being “called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:10) it is nowhere implied that fellowship is dependent upon how much one knows or how free he is of error. It is relationship that matters most; if one is “in Christ” he is in fellowship with all others who sustain that relationship.

It may be a mistake to use fellowship as a verb, suggesting that it is within our power or within a congregation’s power to define who is to be fellowshipped or disfellowshipped. It is within God’s province to determine who is and who is not “in Christ Jesus.” It is but for us to recognize only those limitations that God himself has laid down. It is the conviction of this journal that God has laid down but two conditions for fellowship with his Son: faith in the one fact that Jesus is the Christ and obedience to the one act of immersion. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” says the Lord. When one prescribes that one must believe and behave a certain way regarding instrumental music, millennial theories, and all other such questions, before fellowship is possible, he is going beyond what the Lord has said. He starts a party in doing so. He becomes a legalist in that he prescribes his own standards whereby one is to be recognized as faithful.

Endorsement on the other hand has to do with approving of a viewpoint or action. Even though I recognize a man to be my brother in Christ, I may not sanction his views on as many as a hundred issues. He may even be seriously mistaken about some very significant subjects. This may be so serious that I would hesitate to use him in some areas of Christian work. But I would still sit with him at the Lord’s table and acknowledge him as a brother beloved. While I would take steps to correct his error and to show him the way of the Lord more perfectly, I would nevertheless think of him as within the fellowship of Christ since he has obeyed the same Lord as I. For one “to walk in the light,” where fellowship with Christ is realized, does not mean that he must know the truth on all doctrinal matters. If that were the meaning, how many of us would have any assurance of being in fellowship with Christ. One is walking in the light of Christ when he honors Jesus as his Saviour and makes Him the Master over his life.

If we survive as a Restoration Movement and rise above the multiplicity of divisions that threaten us, we must correct the false notion that fellowship with our Lord is dependent upon doctrinal oneness. The oneness for which our Lord prayed was not that all of us would be carbon copies of each other, but rather that we would all find unity in our faith and obedience to Jesus as the Lord of our lives.

CAUSE FOR CONCERN

A recent issue of the Ladies Home Journal has an article on “The Truth About Illegitimacy” by Glenn Matthew White in which some sobering statistics are presented. Here is a list of some of them:

1. There were 208,000 illegitimate births in the U. S. in 1958.

2. The number of such births are increasing, especially among teenagers.

3. In 1957 two our of every 100 births were illegitimate among whites; among non-whites 21 out of every 100 were illegitimate.

4. More than a third of the girls in teenage marriages are pregnant at marriage and an unusually high proportion of the total divorces are from this population.

5. Studies in some communities indicate that about 20% of first babies born within marriage have been conceived before marriage.

6. Sexual freedom among all classes in the U. S. is on the increase. The most irrefutable evidence is the fact that the number of girls who bear illegitimate babies is but a small fraction of the number who become illegitimately pregnant. The difference between “legal” and “illegal” is the availability of a legal father before the baby is born.

Mr. White points out that while the causes for such behavior are not clear, one conclusion of significance is that the girls with strong religious conviction are much less often guilty of such transgression. The weakening of the family and lack of moral training are cited as causes of such moral depression. There can be no substitute for a solid home built upon moral imperatives. Youth appear to be without continuity and purpose in life, White thinks, and they are not finding a meaningful life in the adults around them.

Surely America is in need of the moral and spiritual principles that come from the Bible. Parents can build morality into the lives of their children, as well as meaning and continuity, by means of daily reference to the Bible. Let us return to family prayer and Bible reading. White points to indiscriminate use of TV, movies, romance magazines, ignorance of sex education as part of the problem. We can say that a return to the simple life patterned after the scriptures is the answer, though I do not intend to oversimplify. It is my conviction that when people believe in the right strongly enough, they will have the strength to avoid such pitfalls. The truth is that many people go wrong because they have no strong convictions; their idea of the difference between right and wrong is vague. Their values are confused. There is no “frame of reference”—such as the conviction that a benevolent Heavenly Father watches over them day and night—to pull them toward the right. Since there is no fear of God before our eyes, we are a society that lives as if there were no God, a society without restraint.

I suggest the following principles from the Bible as a starting point for a rebuilding program of moral values in the home:

1. “In your hearts reverence Christ as Lord” (1 Pet. 3:15). One’s life has direction when Christ is viewed as Lord of all. If one is taught from youth up to reverence Christ, then he or she will think of the Lord as being present on dates as well as at church. This is the needed “frame of reference” that the psychologists talk about. “What would my Lord think?,” is the most meaningful question. This worked for Joseph, who when tempted to commit adultery, said, “How can I commit this great sin against my God?” We come to know Christ only by living with him in prayer, meditation and study. The girl who is so close to her Lord that she goes to her room to pray before each date is not likely to be a statistic in the column of unwed mothers. It is this principle of the Lordship of Christ that is the vitality of the spiritual life. “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts” (Col. 3:15). It is a different story when passion rules or when the gang rules.

2. “Thou God seest me” (Gen. 16:13). Hagar expressed an idea that should ever motivate all of us to live the good life. God knows even the desires and intents of the heart. “In the fear of the Lord one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge” (Pro. 14:26). In all our concern for comfort, security, fashions, new cars and furniture, prestige, and all else esteemed by man, we should not forget that God is watching us and that He will judge us. “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). If our children are trained “to fear God and keep His commandments,” even their dating experiences will be in view of pleasing the Ruler of the universe.

3. “Take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Thoughts are the result of mental activity, the products of mind. Paul is saying that all our intellectual activity is to be made subject to Christ. “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, 0 Lord, my rock and my redeemer.” (Psa. 19:14) The whole personality is to be turned toward God. All intellectual activity is to be disciplined and nurtured so as to be directed toward the Christ. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” If the home can encourage more and more intellectual growth, and direct the growth toward God, what a blessing it would be to the children. If parents had more intelligent conversations about God, the church, and the Bible, and the Christian graces, it would create the ideal environment for the child who first thinks as his parents think. Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher, made the idea of “the intellectual love of God” the center of his life.”

4. “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God; you are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Here is one of the greatest ideas of all the world’s literature. If one really believes that the Heavenly Guest uses the body as His dwelling place, it would greatly influence the whole of his life, including such questions as to whether he should use tobacco and how he should conduct himself on a date. Our children must be taught that fornication is the one and only sin that is against the body (1 Cor. 6:18), and that above all else they are to “Flee fornication.”

5. “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). In this context the apostle warns that those who serve the flesh, committing such sins as fornication and licentiousness, shall not enter the kingdom of God. Our young people must be trained to control their passions and thus present their bodies to God as a living sacrifice. Teenagers are to understand the warfare between spirit and flesh that goes on within them. They are not to be deceived about the difficulty of living the Christian life, but they are to understand that personal sacrifice is required of the one who walks by the Spirit. On the positive side the fruits of the Spirit should be stressed and made a part of daily life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

CHANGES FOR VOLUME 3 OF RESTORATION REVIEW

By means of a reduction in the number of pages in Volume 3 (1961) of Restoration Review we will be able to cut the subscription rate to $1.00. It is our desire to issue a respectable journal of Restoration principles at a subscription rate that is so nominal as to be within the easy reach of all. This means it will no longer be necessary to offer a club rate. All subscriptions will henceforth be $1.00 each. We trust that many of our readers will continue to get up clubs of readers. Nearly always when one takes the initiative he will find a number of people who will be glad to subscribe along with him.

While the exact changes have not yet been worked out with our printer, it is probable that Volume 3 will be 48 pages each number or 192 pages for the year. We may issue two numbers of 64 pages each and two of 32 pages. Or it may vary from issue to issue within a general range of from 32 pages to 64 pages, or from 192 pages to 224 pages for the year. This will be determined in part by the subject matter to be presented in any given issue.

A second change in general makeup will be the use of smaller type. This is ten point that you are now reading. Some of our readers insist that this is ideal size for easy reading, and they have asked why we do not use this type throughout. Mr. Bob Haddow of California, for instance, has pointed out that more material could be included if ten point type were used throughout. We are taking his advice as a means of reducing the cost of the journal and yet giving the readers almost as much material. So, unless the printer points out some obstacle to the plan, we intend to use this type throughout each number for 1961. We also plan to use the single column throughout rather than the double column that you see in this editorial section.

It is to be understood that all these proposed changes are strictly experimental for Volume 3. They may or may not continue beyond 1961. But this much we are promising: you will receive at least 192 pages of material in Volume 3 at the subscription rate of only $1.00. Our intention is to make the publication as attractive and readable as possible, and to offer such reading matter on the Restoration Movement as to be both interesting and edifying.

While plans are not complete as to what subjects will be treated in the forthcoming volume, we intend to give more attention to biographies of Restoration heroes and extend treatment of certain biblical subjects that we think have been neglected. It is probable that the editor himself will do more of the writing in order to realize the overall objectives of the journal.

It will greatly encourage us if you renew your subscription promptly. Inasmuch as the rate is now but $1, why not send an extra buck and an extra name?

Bound Volumes Available

We have left a handful of bound volumes of the 1959 Restoration Review (Volume 1,254 pages). These are deluxe, hand-finished, buckram bound, blue with gold lettering, designed to match the forthcoming bound volumes. The price is $5.00. You may now reserve your copy of the bound Volume 2 (1960, 254 pages) which will be ready by early spring, also at $5.00. Some may be interested in our previous publication, Bible Talk (six volumes, 195258). We yet have a few copies of the last four volumes in both economy binding ($3.00) and the deluxe ($5.00). If interested, write us for further details.