A “BURNING ISSUE”: GUARDIAN STYLE

In the June 29 issue of Gospel Guardian R. L. Burns of Grand Prairie, Texas, wrote as follows regarding the editor of Restoration Review:

It has been the observation of many that the man who apparently stands against everything will soon be falling for everything. Brother Leroy Garrett, heralded by some a few years ago as “the Alexander Campbell of the 20th century,” has deserted his fanatical hobbies and companions for the “Christian Church,” where he now teaches in one of their sectarian schools. He began his move from one extreme to the other by pleading for brethren to recognize that Christians are to be found in many denominations and we must “love our brethren” and not create divisions among them.

By “fanatical hobbies” I suppose brother Burns is referring to my stormy years as editor of Bible Talk, during which time I emphasized such issues as the modern pastor system, institutionalism, the difference between gospel and doctrine, and “Church of Christ” sectarianism in general. Brother Burn’s judgment that these were “fanatical hobbies” reminds me of the fact that during the six years of Bible Talk I was seldom, if ever, successful in getting my critics to represent my views fairly. I was stigmatized as everything from a hobby-rider to a schizophrenic, but it was hardly ever granted that my views were in harmony not only with the world of scholarship of our time, but with the best minds among our pioneers as well. I invited my critics to brand as fanatics and lunatics such men as Campbell, McGarvey, Lipscomb, Fanning, and Franklin, but they were reluctant to do this.

My objections to the pastor system were represented as opposition to preachers being paid or that preachers cannot work with churches that have elders; my criticism of institutionalism were interpreted as being against Christian education or opposed to taking care of orphans; my work in behalf of mutual ministry was made to mean that I believed everyone should teach regardless of ability; when I sought to show the significance of the difference between preaching the gospel and teaching the apostles’ doctrine, the “intelligent” response was that I should demonstrate the difference by preaching awhile and then teaching awhile --- and to point out when I changed gears!

It was then my conviction, and it is now, that no critic could represent my views truthfully and then show them to be contrary to the scriptures. As to the pastor system, for example, I never recall a critic explaining that Leroy Garrett’s position is that the scriptural function of elders has been largely displaced by the practice of employing an evangelist as the minister of the church to do what the elders themselves should be doing, that elders should care for the churches and evangelists should go to new fields, and then to proceed to show from the New Testament that my teaching on elders and evangelists was wrong. They found it easier to “poison the well” by either calling names or by distorting my views to the point where one would wonder how anyone could believe such things.

More recently “the chickens have come home to roost” regarding some of my fanatical hobbies, and I think this might include our good brother Burns. Some brethren who then called me an “anti” and a “Sommerite” because of my criticisms of institutionalism are now being branded with those very same invectives! They are now riding the same “fanatical hobbies,” or at least some of them, that I was then, according to their critics, and I must admit that their, position is now often falsely represented, as mine was by them.

I suppose it all depends on what party one belongs to. If “our party” stands for something, it is truth; if someone in another party contends for it, it is a fanatical hobby. So it is with heresy: what we believe is the truth; those who oppose what we believe are heretics.

Brother Burns says I have deserted my “fanatical hobbies.” Perhaps I should plead not guilty, for I continue to hold and to teach the same ideas that I set forth in Bible Talk. Hardly an issue of this journal is published without some reference to some of them. Not only have I not changed my mind about the pastor system, I am more convinced than ever that it is an integral part of the larger problem of ecclesiasticism that must be corrected if we ever restore the ancient order. As for the so-called college question, I am still persuaded that “Church of Christ” colleges are not only parochial, which indicts them as sound educational institutions, but that they are part and parcel of “the System” of “Church of Christ” sectarianism.

I have not learned just when something becomes a hobby. Perhaps Jesus was a hobbyist about the kingdom of God and Paul about the one body. But the term has a connotation that I do not like. It suggests that one is so obsessed with a notion that he cannot think or write about anything else. And yet that may not be all bad! Perhaps every reformer is a hobbyist, or at least would be thought so by most people, for he is persistent in his protests, whether they be social, economic, moral, or religious. He keeps up his protests until something happens.

This is why, I suppose, the editor of Bible Talk was so often accused of being a hobby-rider, and also why the editor of Gospel Guardian is so called. A viewpoint becomes a hobby when it is pressed to the hurting point. An editor is “riding a hobby” when he so rubs the sore spots of those that are guilty that they experience more and more pain with each issue of the publication.

It has long been a point of interest with me that the “hit and run” writers can say what the hobbyists say without being branded opprobriously. For instance, if recent remarks by James A. Allen in the Gospel Guardian on the pastor system had appeared under the name of Leroy Garrett or Carl Ketcherside, it doubtless would have been judged as “more of their hobby-riding.” Or take such a statement as this one from Herbert Winkler in the January 12, 1961 issue of Gospel Guardian: “What has brought about this condition? I think the most obvious contributing element is the fact that we have essentially established a practice concerning which we used to chide the denominational preachers --- the ‘pastor system.’” Then perhaps brother Winkler would grant some virtue to Bible Talk for chiding the Church of Christ preachers for a practice that they have “essentially established.”

Then there are those “hit and run” remarks of brother Lemmons in Firm Foundation. In his February 7, 1961 issue he said: “We are paying the penalty for the fact that the church has been preacher-taught instead of elder-taught.” Then he says: “Preachers in the New Testament, it seems to us, spent most of their time reaching the lost, and elders spent their time teaching the saved.” Brother Lemmons adds: “There is more to this mutual edification idea than meets the eye . . . We believe a multiplicity of teachers is absolutely essential to any sort of ‘restoration movement.’”

I have gathered quite a collection of admissions of guilt to the charges made in Bible Talk. The statements above by Winkler and Lemmons are good brief statements of what I am called a “hobbyist” for teaching. But there is one big difference, and it is indeed a big difference! Bible Talk persisted in such teaching, issue after issue, citing examples of the innovations. The “hit and run” statements are made by men who have no intention of following through to the bitter conclusion of their admissions. According to Lemmons’ editorial, the “Church of Christ” of today is guilty of a system that displaces the work of elders: the church is preacher-taught instead of elder-taught! Then should that system not be eliminated?

Whenever the editor of the Firm Foundation, or anyone else, makes a serious effort to unhorse the “Church of Christ” clergy, or any other clergy, he will have the fight of his life on his hands. Lemmons says: “Drastic steps should be taken to eliminate the ‘laity’ and to produce a priestly tribe of the entire family of God.” It all depends on how “drastic” our brother becomes in the “steps” he takes as to the way he will be treated. If he declares war on the pastor system that is responsible for “preacher-taught churches instead of elder-taught churches,” he will bring the ire of the clergy down upon him. The “resident ministers,” who are well pleased to do the elders’ work instead of evangelistic work, will boycott his paper. The harder he fights the system the more he will be persecuted. He will be called every foul invective that men can think of, and he will be accused of heresy and of trying to divide the church. He may even be put in jail! One only needs to look at history, to Martin Luther or Alexander Campbell, to see what happens to a man when he dares to challenge the assumed prerogatives of the clergy.

Perhaps it is better to strike at these innovations with gentler blows than I have done. The “hit and run” method may be wiser, though obviously not very drastic. Lemmons’ insistence that “drastic steps” be taken would be more after the all-out, aggressive effort of Bible Talk. But this is the method of the hobbyist or the fanatic, at least in terms of popular judgment. The great reformers of history were judged as fanatics by their contemporaries, and those men whose tombs we garnish might well be persecuted by us if they did their work in our day.

An editor can get by with a few sporadic outbursts against our sectarian practices so long as he is generally loyal to the party. It is like the recalcitrant politician who lambasts his party from time to time for its failures. This he can do as long as he remains a party man, and he will be a party man as long as he looks to the party for approbation and support. But let him bolt the party and the story is entirely different. Then both approbation and support are withdrawn, and he is treated like a heretic. So it is with editors. So long as they make their living off those to whom they write, and as long as their journals generally follow the party line, they can take only an occasional sideswipe at the party’s sins. A party man cannot be a reformer. The “drastic steps” will have to be taken by someone who is willing to be crucified by the party, for that is precisely what will happen to him.

Brother Burns tells his readers that I have gone to the “Christian Church.” A summer of travel among the churches convinced me that this is a very widespread report. It seems that many brethren believe this because they want to. In their minds it tends to nullify my teaching, which had not been nullified too well any other way. It was apparent that some relished the news of my apostasy. It was something they gleefully passed along. Something that Church of Christ folk would have considered good about me would not have spread so rapidly nor made it into the columns of brotherhood papers so easily.

It would be interesting to hear brother Burns’ proof that I have gone to the “Christian Church.” I venture to say that it is strictly hearsay with him. What congregation of the “Christian Church” have I joined? Where is my membership? The truth is that I have since 1957 (the year I left Dallas) been a member of the Hartford, Illinois congregation, which would be classed by some as “a Sommerite church.” It not only has no instrumental music, but as brother Lemmons insists that churches should be, it is “elder-taught” instead of “preacher-taught.” It has no located minister. It is anything but a “Christian Church.” If anyone is really interested, they can write the elders of that congregation (in care of Otto Schlieper, Hartford, Ill.) as to my activity since 1957. So, brother Burns, I have not gone to the “Christian Church”!

In defense of our “Christian Church” brethren I might say, however, that “going to the Christian Church” may not be any worse than “going to the Church of Christ.” As for me, I choose to be in Christ, and I am not interested in going anywhere. I shall have my membership in that congregation where I believe I can best serve God, and I do not measure my religion in terms of loyalty to any party, whether it be the “Christian Church” or the “Church of Christ.”

My brother in Grand Prairie, Texas, also states that I am teaching in a “Christian Church” sectarian school. So what? I would take exceptions if he had said, “He is teaching sectarianism in a sectarian school.” I was previously at a Methodist college, but I did not teach Methodism. Just so I could teach at a “Church of Christ” school without teaching the partyism of that religious group. Incidentally, brother Burns, would I be teaching at a “sectarian school” if I were at Florida Christian College? Just for argument’s sake, I think I could make a good case that FCC is much more sectarian than Bethany.

Yet I could teach philosophy even at Florida Christian --- and I am sure that would be some experience! While I cannot conscientiously teach in the theology department of any school, I can teach philosophy in any school, whether it be private, state, or denominational. Just as I believe a Christian physician could practice medicine at a Jewish or Roman Catholic hospital, so I could teach in a Jewish or Roman Catholic university.

The truth of the matter is that brother Burns is not happy with me because I do not belong to his party. If I were in line with his particular brand of “Church of Christ” religion, I would then be loyal and faithful instead of a fanatic and hobbyist. If I were a professor at the parochial Florida Christian College, then I would not be allied with “a sectarian school,” for FCC is loyal to his party.

Brother Burns points to my “extreme” view that “Christians are to be found in many denominations.” His is the “extreme” view if he believes otherwise, and his criticism implies he does. What is the man saying? Will he have us believe that all Christians are members of what he calls the “Church of Christ”? Will he change the plea of Restorationists that “we are Christians only” to “we are the only Christians”?

Not only will such a view de-christianize many immersed believers Jesus said: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”) in various religious bodies, but it will reject our own pioneer preachers who were first Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. Alexander Campbell was immersed by a Baptist and continued in the Baptist fellowship for several years before he was forced to withdraw. Such was the case with Scott, Stone, and ole Raccoon John Smith. It is probable that these men would not have left these denominations if they had not been driven out. They would have worked for Restoration where they were.

It is a matter of record that Raccoon Smith would not leave the Baptists even when they tried to get him to! And it was always a point of concern to Campbell that the Baptists and Disciples were not working together. It was Walter Scott who brought Sidney Rigdon’s Baptist Church into the Restoration Movement without anyone being re-baptized. Barton Stone also “took in” Baptist churches without re-immersion.

Will brother Burns say that Campbell was not a Christian while yet within the Baptist Church? Is it his position that Smith, Scott, and Stone were “extreme” in viewing the Baptists as Christians? Cannot brother Burns see that a man is not necessarily a sectarian just because he belongs to a sectarian church, and that one may be a sectarian even if he belongs to a “non-sectarian” church (if there are any!)?

Maybe “Uncle Dave” Lipscomb can help R. L. Burns:

There are some in nonsectarian churches who are sectarians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sectarians. They are sectarians in their opposition to sectarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the churches in which they find themselves.

As example, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches who were baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike. (Questions Answered, p. 592)

It looks as if ole “Uncle Dave” believed that “Christians are to be found in many denominations,” brother Burns. This ought to put Carl Ketcherside and me in fairly good company. Then there is Alexander Campbell. On the night that he left Bethany for Louisville where he was to debate Robert Owen, the infidel, he wrote: “I rejoice to know and feel that I have the good wishes, the prayers, and the hopes of myriads of Christians in all denominations.” (Christian Baptist, Vol. 6, p. 239) Again he said: “We gave it as our opinion that there were Christians among the Protestant sects; an opinion, indeed, which we have always expressed when called upon.” (Mill. Harb. 8, p. 506)

It is pathetic that during these dark days of world crisis, when the 178 churches of the World Council are seeking some solution to the problem of divided Christendom, that the “Church of Christ” should choose to be part of the problem rather than part of the answer. We are not a unity movement. The exclusivistic idea that “we are the only Christians” is both offensive and arrogant. It makes unity impossible. And we have shown that the Restoration Movement from the very outset had no such viewpoint. Our pioneers sought to unite the Christians that were scattered by schism. As Campbell put it: “What could we have meant by all that we have written upon the union of Christians on apostolic grounds, had we taught that all Christians in the world were already united in our own community.” (Mill. Harb. 8, p. 561)

Yet our Gospel Guardian brethren talk as if all the Christians are in the “Church of Christ.” It should be enough to claim that some in the “Church of Christ” are Christians --- then concede that there just might be some in other religious bodies. I would only have men like R. L. Burns to remember that they, and not I, are the extremists. And it is they, not I, that have departed from the original plea of the Restoration Movement. They are the ones that have raped the Restoration Movement with their own schismatic philosophy, and it is they who persist in dividing the Movement into more and more factions. Which “Church of Christ” is it, brother Burns, that has all the Christians in it --- the newest one or one of the other dozen or so?

Jesus says: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” All who believe and obey the Lord are Christians. They are the church of Jesus Christ, however scattered they may be. It matters not who baptizes them. Nor does it keep them from being Christians if they are unfortunately and unwillingly enmeshed in sectarianism. This is why I believe there are Christians in the “Church of Christ” too! --- the Editor.