THE CHURCH OF BILLIE SOL ESTES

The Billie Sol Estes case has brought considerable free publicity to Pecos, Texas, the Department of Agriculture, and the Church of Christ. Several national magazines have publicized that Billie Sol is not only a member of the Church of Christ, but that he is an elder in said church, and that he has strict views on such matters as mixed bathing and dancing. Senator Yarborough of Texas stated that Estes had been in touch with his Washington office several times in an effort to secure passage for Church of Christ missionaries into Africa.

News media have also revealed that not only has the Pecos Church of Christ benefitted from liberal gifts from Estes, but that the minister of the congregation was the recipient of a new Cadillac. Should a minister or a church keep gifts paid for by Estes while government workers are required to give up their positions for receiving gifts from him?

Let the gifts be as they will, there is no question but that Billie Sol has presented the Church of Christ to millions of Americans, however dubious this kind of advertising may be. As in the case of President Kennedy, it is well known what church Estes belongs to. It is not clear just what our people think about the image Estes has created, for the Church of Christ press is conspicuously silent about it all.

While Secretary Freeman of the Department of Agriculture and the city fathers of Pecos show every sign of embarrassment, it is not apparent that the church of Billie Sol is either embarrassed or chagrined. It takes some measure of maturity for one to be humbled and saddened by the sins that transpire at his own doorstep and within his own circle. It requires a maturity that Israel did not have in the time of Jeremiah the prophet. He said of the people: “Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush.” (Jer. 6:15)

Israel was willing for her prophets to condemn the sins of others. Amos was orthodox so long as he condemned the transgressions of Damascus, Tyre, and Moab, but once he “set a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel” he was in for trouble. He was told: “Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not preach against the house of Isaac” (Amos 7:16). Whenever he turned from the “sects” to criticize his own people, he was told to go elsewhere. The idea was that “we are right” and “we are the kingdom of God,” so don’t criticize us (Amos 7:12-13). Thus Amos had good reason to pronounce a woe upon those “who are at ease in Zion, and those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria” (6:1).

It would be a good guess that Church of Christ ministers could (and some no doubt would) have used Billie Sol as an illustration of apostasy had he been a Baptist. It is always open season on the Baptists! And isn’t it just like those Baptists to argue that “once in grace always in grace,” and then produce the like of Billie Sol Estes! Or it is the kind of thing you’d expect from the Catholics!

This journal has sought in recent issues to show that we have no reason to think ourselves more righteous than anybody else. Not only should we withdraw the claim of being the only Christians and the New Testament church, but we need to confess our sinfulness and inadequacy just as every religious communion should. We too are sinners saved by grace; we too have much to learn from others. And we too have a large measure of wickedness in our midst. Once we think in these terms we will be less proud and more humble, and we will then know how to blush.

Jeremiah told the people they would be brought to judgment for saying “I have not sinned” and because they “refused to be ashamed” (Jer. 2:35, 3:3). This journal does not intend unkindness when it points out that the sins of our people are as enormous as those we label the sects. Not only are we as sectarian as anybody else (we are first in internal divisions and squabbles), but we have every form of wickedness amongst us. We like to forget that a minister of an Illinois congregation left his wife one night to do “personal work,” but instead he parked at a super market until a woman returned from her shopping; then at knife point forced her into his car, drove to a secluded spot where he raped her. The very next night he used a similar plan in raping a second woman. He is most fortunate to be spending his life at the state penitentiary at Joliet. Those of “the world” showed him more mercy than he showed to two innocent women. Otherwise he would have paid with his life. He is a graduate of one of our Christian colleges.

Another Church of Christ minister, also a product of one of our citadels of righteousness, wasted his substance at the dice tables in Las Vegas, having been introduced to them by some of the members of his Dallas congregation. He then turned to robbery in an effort to regain the losses sustained by his wealthy family. After joining thugs who hijacked a supermarket or two, he was sent to the penitentiary. We are happy to report that the poor, misled brother has recently been released to the care of his father and is finding his way back to a constructive life.

Not only have we too produced thugs, murderers, rapists — and now Billie Sol Estes — but we too have our share of rebellious children, broken homes, prudish husbands, wayward wives, pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, adultery, willful ignorance, faction, degeneracy, partyism, downright dishonesty and all the rest. And we know almost nothing about personal discipline, private prayer and meditation, family devotions, and self-exploration. For a people that makes the fantastic claim of being the only true church we need to take a second look at our brand of righteousness. We are more famous for our condemnation of others than for our benevolence; we appear more eager to build up our own party at home and abroad than to alleviate human suffering.

It may well be that Billie Sol Estes is what we would call a pretty good fellow. No doubt he can justify himself in his own mind. It may have been his intention to do a lot of good with his money (or the other fellow’s money), and it is probable that he never intended to hurt anyone or to defraud anyone. After all, some business men see only a fine line between being shrewd and smart and being unethical. To many business men in Estes’ kind of world Billie Sol’s sin was in getting caught. And how many never get caught?

We are willing to leave Estes’ judgment with the courts and with God. It is the church of Billie Sol Estes that concerns me in this case, for I am suspicious that the apparent thinking of Billie Sol relative to right and wrong is rather typical of Church of Christ people. Perhaps I should say it is typical of all religious people who so stress externality as to neglect spirituality. It is the sad story of the Pharisees who “neglected the weightier matters of the law” in an effort to be right about everything external.

It is much more likely that the Roman Catholics or the Church of Christ would produce a Billie Sol than say the Quakers. I cannot think of an infamous Quaker, though it might please some to name Richard Nixon or Drew Pearson. The Quakers are known around the world as peacemakers. They would hardly know how to behave at some of the church squabbles that we have. They are known for their humble, simple lives and their generosity to the depressed and the poor of the world. The “image” of the Quaker is one of poverty of spirit. But what is the “image” of the Church of Christ member? Is it not one of straight-laced austerity? Are we not known as people who think we’re right and everybody else is wrong? And are we not better known for what we are against than what we are for? Those who know us well know that we have almost nothing to do with any other church, that we are exclusivists of the first order. I fear that our “image” includes arrogance and self-righteousness. To say the least, we are hardly recognized for our humility!

The image that the people of Pecos had of Billie Sol before his sudden rise to infamy was not unlike the picture that many people have of Church of Christ folk. He was a man who used his money and influence to conform everyone else to his own way of thinking. The press stories reveal that when a school dance was scheduled, Estes would have a party at his plush home in order to keep the kids off the dance floor. He ran for a place on the school board with the intention of banning dancing in the schools. He tried to keep a cold drink vending machine out of the school gym so as to discourage the students from gathering and dancing. A Pecos housewife was quoted as saying: “For him to run most of the businesses in town is one thing, but it is something else when he tries to control the lives of our children.”

Amidst all this concern for dancing and mixed bathing he was engaged in practices that led to his arrest by federal authorities. Not only fraudulent business methods, but even the possibility of murder has become a part of the larger Estes scandal. What kind of thinking is it that can cause a man to compartmentalize his mind so that he is at the same time so religious that he will not dance and so irregular in his business dealings as to be arrested for fraud?

It is an oversimplification to say that such a man is just another hypocrite. Surely Estes was sincere in his opposition to dancing and mixed bathing. And could he not have been conscientious in his role of elder in the Pecos Church of Christ even while these questionable practices were going on? It may well be the story of the poor Pharisees all over again. They could leave an ox wounded in a ditch, flog a disciple of Jesus, slap an apostle, and even consign men to death, and at the same time pray for God’s blessings upon their conduct. When one becomes enmeshed in the externality of religion, his sense of values can become confused and he can violate basic moral principles with no sense of inconsistency.

I know a young lady (a Church of Christ girl, incidentally) who went to college with Billie Sol’s view of worldliness. It was soon known among the student body that this girl not only objected to smoking and drinking, but she did not dance or even attend a movie. But she soon gained quite a reputation for her highly questionable conduct with boys on dates.

Then there is a fellow Church of Christ editor who named his little church paper the same name this journal wears. I wrote him a kind letter in which I explained that since my journal was already in its second year and his was but beginning he would not only show courtesy by selecting another name, but that he would avoid confusion for us all in doing so. I pointed out that I had first decided on Restoration Quarterly for my journal, but before I issued the first number, some brethren in Abilene started a journal by that name. So as a matter of journalistic ethics as well as Christian courtesy, not to mention my interest in avoiding confusion, I modified the name.

My editor friend wrote back that since he did not recognize my journal as loyal he would not be able to honor my request. It is the Jesuit doctrine that error has no rights. Ethical principles do not apply in the case of apostates. The president of Freed-Hardeman College a few years ago put a fellow disciple in jail — and then prayed about it in a public meeting the same night! Did not Jesus teach his disciples that men would put them to death thinking they were doing God’s service?

If our people can get so mad that they will not speak to a brother when he turns premillennial or anti-Herald of Truth, vilify each other in our journals, go to law over church property, put each other in jail, excommunicate each other over differing opinions, boycott each other — and we do all these things — and then go right on with our loyal “five acts of worship” fully convinced that we are pets of heaven, then we should have no difficulty in understanding the mind of Billie Sol Estes.

Though there are, thank God, many exceptions, I think we can refer to “the Church of Christ mind.” That mind cannot truly entertain a new idea. Can you fancy a Bible study in a typical Church of Christ where a brother would feel free to say: “That reminds me of an article by Carl Ketcherside that I read the other day. It suggested another answer to this question . . .”? The “Church of Christ mind” has its many keep-off-the-grass signs. Like the oceans, it knows that it can go so far but no further. Not only is it not free, it is also blind. It is the mind that will go petting with the boys, but not dare go to a dance; it is the mind that has one ethic for the loyal and another for digressives; it is the mind that will preach the Golden Rule and then turn and imprison a brother or not speak to him because of his change of position.

It would be unfair to call it a hypocritical mind, for our people in the main are sincere. But it is fair to call it a stereotyped mind, the mind of conformity. Laboring under a misunderstanding of such scriptures as I Cor. 1:10 (“All of you speak the same thing . . . be of the same mind and same judgment”) and Amos 3:3 (“How can two walk together except they be agreed”), the “Church of Christ mind” is obsessed with conformity. Everyone must see alike in matters of doctrine or there can be no unity. Supposing unity to be oneness of opinion, our people demand conformity when they think they are pleading for unity.

They thus confuse fellowship and endorsement, supposing that fellowship is not possible until there can be an endorsement of one another’s points of view. This is the great fallacy of Church of Christ thinking. Therefore a brother is not recognized because he uses an organ in the worship, or perhaps he believes in an earthly reign of Christ or any other idea that does not conform to Church of Christ orthodoxy. And so when differences over Herald of Truth and benevolent institutions become sufficiently distinct it was necessary that another brotherhood be started. The Church of Christ mind thus becomes stereotyped. Brethren must be carbon copies of each other, loyal to a creed that is no less real because it is unwritten.

Since conformity can best be tested by externals, fellowship ro the Church of Christ mind is determined primarily by things — and so in the short history of the Church of Christ divisions have risen over communion cups, organ, colleges, classes, societies, institutions, radio programs. This is new in discipledom. Up until the Civil War and after the Disciples were not divisive, breaking up into various “loyal churches” over differences. Despite their differences, including severe feelings about slavery and the War, they never divided. The reason is simple: they did not confuse fellowship for endorsement. They understood that a brother might be wrong about many things and still be in the fellowship of the saints (Romans 14:1).

When religion accents externals it tends to be rigid and legalistic. By rigid I mean it is unbending and inflexible, allowing no space for the mind’s growth except in predetermined channels. The rigid mind must have sideboards so that it will not venture astray. By legalistic I mean that party interpretations are made the absolute, infallible word of God. The verse referred to above, Amos 3:3, is for example a party interpretation when it is made to mean that two men cannot enjoy fellowship with each other or be together in religious worship unless they are agreed doctrinally. One only needs to read the passage in more than one version, or simply read the context, to see that Amos is making no reference whatever to unity or fellowship. They are many party interpretations made by our people.

As the mind grows legalistic and rigid (and sometimes frigid too) it is easy for it to tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law. It becomes less difficult for a mind like Billie Sol Estes to rationalize his wheeling and dealing so long as he remains loyal to the externals. If one belongs to the true church and is faithful to “the five acts” it is easier for him to believe that the end justifies the means. Moral principles can sometimes be blurred even though the externals shine brightly. Too often loyalty to the externals provide a false security.

The case of Billie Sol is a tragic one. Let us hope that he will come through this experience a better man. It is a far greater tragedy if we as a people are creating stereotyped minds in a world that needs free minds. Tyranny over the minds of men is worse than fraud.

Billie Sol’s case is further confused by the fact that some of the leaders of the Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock are implicated. While it seems that one brother merely was unfortunate enough to have innocently loaned Estes money for his deals, one of the elders at Broadway heads a manufacturing concern that claimed to have manufactured and delivered fertilizer tanks for Estes. The elder’s company issued statements that the tanks were delivered!

But I still say that tyranny over the human mind is worse than fraud, and that is at Broadway too! We just might have an interesting story to tell along that line someday — one that will curl your hair!

IS FAITH DOCTRINAL OR PERSONAL?

The Firm Foundation is to be commended for conducting a kind of “open forum” on the question as to whether we should preach the Man or the Plan. Numerous articles appeared on the subject, most of them arguing that we are to preach both Jesus and the plan of salvation. The writers differed mostly on where the emphasis should be, some insisting that the apostles preached Jesus, leaving the plan to follow in due course. Others contended that Jesus cannot be preached without preaching the plan, and that the plan is indeed to be stressed.

Editor Lemmons injected this question into the exchange: how can one preach Jesus without emphasizing the plan? I think no one pointed him to Acts 2 where Peter did that very thing. The record makes it clear that Peter proclaimed the gospel to the men of Israel, the conclusion of which was “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” The gospel had been preached without a word about any plan or “five steps to salvation.” Yea, not even a word about baptism! Why? Because there is a difference between the gospel and the terms by which one accepts the gospel.

Peter preached the gospel — the full gospel — on the day of Pentecost, but he said nothing about the terms of the gospel until he was asked. Suppose he had not been asked? There is no reason to think that he would have said anything about baptism. It appears from Acts 13:16-41 that Paul preached the gospel when no inquiry was made as to how to obey it, and so he says nothing about baptism or any plan. Yet he preached the gospel! He proclaimed a Person, and when that love story was told as to what God has done for sinful man through the Christ, it often aroused response from honest and good hearts. Once they believed in the Person, it was time enough to point out the terms of response.

A man hears “that his name was drawn for the new Cadillac that was given away by the super market. This is good news or gospel. He made no response to this good news, if he reacted in no way to indicate his acceptance, he would never receive the new car. But he nonetheless heard the good news — all the good news there was to tell! Most men would of course respond by making inquiry as to what procedures should be followed. The information such a one would receive relative to papers to be signed or taxes to be paid in order to get the Cadillac is quite different from the good news that his name was drawn.

This is why this journal insists that Billy Graham is a gospel preacher even if he does not make clear the terms of pardon. If Graham preaches the risen Christ, he preaches the gospel. If he tells God’s love story that through the sacrifice of Christ man has victory over sin, he preaches the gospel — the full gospel. We readily admit that he errs in not stating the terms of acceptance as did Peter in Acts 2:38.

The question of “the Man or the Plan” is confused in part by the notion that the gospel embraces all the New Testament scriptures. Our people are slow to discern the important distinction between didache (doctrine) and kerugma (gospel message). In I Cor. 2:3 the apostle refers to the message (kerugma) he proclaimed to the Corinthians; he describes this as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in I Cor. 15:1-4. He refers to it as “the thing preached” in I Cor. 1:21. Surely the thing preached is one thing, while all his instructions on the saintly life such as we have throughout the Corinthian correspondence is something else.

Paul himself shows the difference (in I Cor. 4:15: “Though you have (countless guides (teachers) in Christ you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” Paul beget then: by the gospel message; they were further instructed by many teachers. If Philip. 1:8 he speaks of “the defense and confirmation of the gospel.” Is it not one thing to preach the gospel and another to “defend” it?

There is Paul’s remark in Gal. 3:8 that “God preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, ‘In thee shall all the nations be blessed’” The gospel is a specific message, one that can be made known in comparatively few words. It was only eight words (in English translation) in the case of Abraham. It took only a few words for John the Baptist to proclaim the gospel at its preparatory level: “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” It is interesting that Luke 3:18 distinguishes between John’s gospel message and the exhortations that accompanied the message.

If these conclusions are warranted, we may affirm that apostolic preaching was centered in a Person, not a plan, In the case of the eunuch in Acts 8, it was a “He” that puzzled him — the “He” that Isaiah had anticipated in prophecy. And it was this “He” that Philip preached about. The eunuch’s request for baptism shows that the evangelist made some reference to the one act of immersion as he spoke of the gospel, which is, of course symbolically expressed in immersion. The important point is that Philip’s message was personal.

FAITH AS PERSONAL

Some suppose that Christian faith is doctrinal, but we regard it as personal. One is saved when he believes heaven’s grand proposition that Jesus is the Christ, which is the gospel, and responds to that message by being immersed. Salvation is not dependent upon knowledge of certain doctrines but faith in a certain Person. It is not a matter of how much he knows or does not know about the Bible, but upon what he believes about the Christ. One may be wholly ignorant of such a device as “the five steps in the plan of salvation” and yet yield himself to the Person of the Christ “through faith in the working of God” (Col. 2:12).

We repeat our often stated avowal: when one believes one fact that Jesus is the Christ and obeys the one act of immersion into the Christ, he becomes a saint of God. Never mind what he knows or does not know about the church, the doctrine of baptism, steps of salvation, or what have you. Never mind how right or wrong he may be on prophecy, music in the church, institutionalism, eternal security, or what have you. He is a saint. He is my brother. If he happens to end up in a sect in his confused search for more and more light, including the “Church of Christ” sect, he is still a Christian, still my brother, and we are in fellowship with each other.

One mark of sectarianism is that it regards Christian faith as an assent to a particular set of tenets, and one is not true to “the faith” unless he conforms to the sect’s own interpretations. Faith is a simple and loving trust in Jesus the Christ. It means to love him and to seek to conform one’s life after his purity and holiness. Being truly faithful means to love Jesus with all one’s personality.

A man may have this kind of faith and yet be wrong about many doctrinal matters. He is not “unfaithful” if he happens to believe premillenialism or if he thinks instrumental music all right, unless these views in some way indicated that he did not truly love the Christ.

It is inconceivable to me that a man could be lost who loves God with all his heart and trusts in the Christ as his Lord, irrespective of doctrinal errors in his thinking. It begs the question to argue that if one trusts in the Lord he will obey all his commandments, and then to proceed to list those doctrines that receive special emphasis from some religious group. Yes, a true believer in Jesus will obey his commandments. Jesus says that. But one must understand the doctrines before he can obey them, which calls for much Christian growth. What shall we do with him in the meantime? Will we wait until he grows to the level that he interprets all scripture as we do before we enjoy fellowship with him? Shall we reject him as a brother because he now does not understand doctrine as we do?

In the Firm Foundation exchange referred to above, Frank Lilly writes the following about some “modernist” he heard in Abilene: “He also said he could attend a sectarian meeting and join right in and fellowship them in their singing with their instrumental music, and still not endorse them in what they were doing. I asked him how he could fellowship a thing and still not endorse it. He did not answer.”

Let me answer for the brother. I do not fellowship things. Fellowship is between persons, based upon their mutual relationship to Jesus the Christ. Instrumental music has nothing at all to do with Christian fellowship. True, one might not endorse the use of an organ in worship, but this is different from the fellowship between saints of God who happen to have different opinions about the organ. So, brother Lilly, I can have fellowship with the brother while I do not endorse the thing. Let us not confuse fellowship and endorsement. In Rom. 14 the brethren did not endorse each other’s positions about dietary doctrines, but Paul taught them to receive or fellowship each other. This means that while I may not endorse premillenialism, I can nonetheless enjoy communion or fellowship with the premillennialist.

Our chief point is this: Christian faith is centered in a Person. This comes from belief in testimony of what God has done through Christ. This is the gospel. When men share this precious faith that Jesus is Lord they are in fellowship with each other because they are in Christ together. Doctrine (the apostles’ teaching) is something basically different, which means it has no necessary relationship to the faith. The faith that saves is the faith that believes and obeys the gospel, not all the doctrines or teachings of the New Testament. Doctrine is rather related to Christian growth and perfection. Fellowship is between persons who have believed and obeyed the gospel, but who at the same time may differ greatly on matters of doctrine. It is the gospel that puts us in fellowship with each other, not conformity on doctrine.

IS THE NAME “CHRISTIAN” DIVINELY APPOINTED?

In the March issue of 20th Century Christian Hugo McCord has an article on why the Church of Christ does not have a written creed. This journal would like to see an article on why the Church of Christ does have an unwritten creed! One facet of this unwritten creed is that the name Christian is to be worn as a God-given name. Being scriptural and God-ordained, it is the distinctive name for the Lord’s people, while such names as Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian are human names and therefore sinful and divisive. This is the Church of Christ creed.

A statement by Leroy Brownlow in Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ is typical: “We find in the Bible that the disciples were called Christians, but we never read of any person being called some hyphenated Christian. Regardless of what names others wear, I prefer to stick to the Bible and be a Christian only.” Brother Brownlow goes on to set up some rather novel syllogisms, such as: 1. The Bible condemns human names (I Cor. 1:12, 13); 2. The name “Lutheran” is a human name; 3. Therefore, the name “Lutheran” is under condemnation.

Another syllogism goes this way: 1. Man is commanded to glorify God in the name “Christian” (1. Pet. 4:16); 2. Catholics are trying to glorify God in the name “Catholic”; 3. Therefore, Catholics are in disobedience to the command of God.

It would disturb a person of brother Brownlow’s persuasion to entertain the idea that “Christians” may also be a human name, and that it is no more ordained by God than is the name Lutheran or Catholic. It is furthermore possible for the name “Christian” to be a party name, equally as divisive and sectarian as Methodist or Baptist.

Brother Brownlow is too sure of his position when he writes: “After Paul had preached to King Agrippa the king exclaimed, ‘With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian’ (Acts 26:28). This is what Paul tried to get every person to become and be.”

Where is the evidence for such a claim? The truth is Paul did not once use the name Christian in all his writings; nor did he ever refer to himself by such a name. He never tried to get anyone to wear the name insofar as the Bible reveals. Even in the case alluded to by brother Brownlow, it was the king and not Paul that made mention of the name. The remarkable fact is that Paul did not accept the name even after the king had used it!

It is stimulating to compare Alexander Campbell’s interpretation of Acts 26:28 with that of Church of Christ ministers after the order of Leroy Brownlow:

It is assumed that Paul admitted it as of divine authority when it fell from the lips of king Agrippa. Paul was not such an admirer of regal grandeur as to hold the words of a king divine; nay, he modestly declined the name in the presence of Agrippa. For when the king said, ‘Paul, thou almost persuadest me to be a Christian,’ Paul does not say, ‘I would to God that not only thou, but all that hear me this day, were not only almost, but altogether Christians.’ Nay, verily, he says, ‘altogether such as I am, except these chains.’ The reason was then what it is now. The enemies of Christ desired to put him on a footing with Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and other philosophic and political aspirants, heads of parties, leaders, and thus to place his religion and his party on a par with others according to the ruling custom of the age; by which they hoped to humble his pretensions and exalt their own.

Campbell concludes by saying: “The apostles, therefore, as appears from all their writings, never once adopted the name. They call themselves and one another by numerous and various names, but never by that name:’ (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 26)

Brother Brownlow, in traditional Church of Christ fashion, goes to Isaiah 62:2 where he finds that God’s people are to be called by “a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name.” He shows as follows that this new name from God’s own mouth is the name Christian::

They were not to be given this new name until after the Gentiles had been converted or had seen the righteousness of God. In Acts 10 we read of the conversion of the Gentiles: Cornelius and his household. In the next chapter (Acts 11 :26) we read, “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” This was a new name and it was given after the Gen tiles had seen the righteousness of God. If this is not the new name that was to be given by Jehovah, then tell us what is, please.

Since brother Brownlow wants someone to tell him what name Isaiah was talking about if it were not the name Christian, I think it proper to refer him to a man whose scholarship he respects so highly. Alexander Campbell writes as follows:

Others again have assumed that Christian is the new name by which God’s people were to be called, as intimated in Isaiah 62 :2. But that was in the days of text-preaching when the context had little or nothing to do with the interpretation of any passage: for now all are satisfied that the new name there spoken of is Hepzibah —”the delight of the Lord,” or “My delight is in her.” But although we are not called upon to prove that this name was not given by divine authority, or friends being obliged to offer proof that it was; we may fearlessly affirm, from all that has recently been written on the subject, and from all that is in the New Testament, that no person can possibly prove that it was divinely introduced or sanctioned. (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 25)

Let us underscore the conclusion that Campbell so fearlessly makes: No person can possibly prove that the name Christian was divinely introduced or sanctioned.

For those who are unafraid to think for themselves and let their minds venture beyond the appointed boundaries, I should like to make the following observations relative to the name Christian:

1. If “Christian” was the God-appointed name for his people, why were they 12 or 14 years after Pentecost receiving this name? The Spirit came on Pentecost, directing the apostles into all truth. Why was it over a decade later after many saints had died that the truth concerning this name was finally given?

2. Why does the Holy Spirit never call the disciples Christians, both before and after Antioch, whether in Acts or any other part of the New Testament? Luke wrote Acts thirty or forty years after the disciples were called Christians at Antioch. If he believed it to be the God-ordained name, why did not he himself use the term in Acts? Even if for some strange reason God did not want the saints designated as Christians until Antioch, why did not Luke thereafter refer to them by that name? In the immediate verses following Acts 11:26 Luke is again calling them disciples, and in the whole length of his history of the primitive church he does not once call them by the name that God had ordained that they should wear! Now, really, does that make sense?

4. Did Luke and other writers of the New Testament scriptures disobey God by their failure to use the God-ordained name? They used the term disciple over one hundred times. Terms like saints, brethren, beloved of God are used by the writers, some with great frequency. While Christian occurs three times, and only three times in the entire New Testament, it is all three times used in reference to outsiders applying the name to the disciples.

5. In every instance in the Bible where God designated another name for one that name was immediately appropriated and used regularly and unfailingly from then on. Abram was changed to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah. Even Saul was consistently called Paul once he became an apostle, though this may not have been ordained of God. Could the disciples have believed that God had given a new name, one anticipated even by the prophets, and yet not have appropriated it?

6. Is Christ a name? Is it not Jesus the Christ, meaning the Messiah or the Anointed One? If God wanted us to wear his son’s name, would it not be Jesus? This is the name God gave to him (Matt. 1:21). He was called “the Christ” because of the character of his work. Christ is no more Jesus’ name than Baptist is John’s name.

7. Christ is the Greek term for Anointed One, while Messiah is the Hebrew form. Would it be as acceptable for a Jewish disciple to be designated a Messiahist as for a Gentile disciple to be called Christian?

8. The saints had several nicknames given them by the world, some by derision and some by convenient designation. Nazarenes was not in opprobrium as was Atheists. It appears that Christian was given by the Antiochians, not in derision or dislike, but simply for identification, just as they would call Plato’s disciples Platonists.

Johannes Weiss in his Earliest Christianity (Vol 1, p. 175) puts it this way “They were called Christians by the populace, which wished in this way to fasten on to them a kind of party designation as a nickname; they were called Christ partisans, just as later on names were formed for the heretics: Basilidians, Valentinians, Arians. Here Christ was thought of as a kind of party leader.”

9. It may well be that the group at Corinth who avowed “We are of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12) were as sectarian as those who wished to belong to Paul or Cephas, for all had the spirit of rivalry in view of Paul’s language. I am inclined to agree with Alexander Campbell in a statement that would cause the hair of many of my brethren to stand on end: there is as much intolerance and heresy in contending for the name Christian as for the name Baptist. (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 363)

It is evident from 1 Pet. 4:16 that the saints were persecuted under the name Christian. This may have reference to legal trials in which the disciples had judgment passed upon them for being Christians. We know from various sources (e. g., Seutonius’ letter to the Emperor Trajan) that at an early date it was illegal in the Roman Empire to be a Christian. It may also be the case that by this time the enemies of the gospel used the term in derision, though is should not be concluded that it so originated, nor was it generally at the outset used as an opprobrium.

In the dispute among the Disciple pioneers as to whether the name was divinely appointed, James Challen was led to say: “To suppose that the enemies of Christ gave them this name is simply ridiculous, as no higher compliment could have given than to have bestowed the name upon them. They had called the disciples Nazarenes, Galileans, men of the way, or sect, but never had they called them Christians; and if the enemies of the disciples did not give the name who did.” (Lard’s Quarterly, 1, p. 390)

Challen overlooked the fact that the name could have been given by outsiders who were not enemies, simply as a convenient name of reference. Too, while the term may have first been merely a nickname, it could well have evolved into one of derision as the movement became more hated. This is possible regardless of how precious the ideas might be behind the name Christian to the disciples. It is not true that Christian would at first simply suggest one who follows after the Christ, while later in the history of the church it takes on a sublime meaning due to its implication of the character of the Christ? Certainly in the primitive church an outsider, or even an enemy, could refer to the disciples as Christians without any thought of bestowing a compliment!

Once a disciple associates the holiness of the Christ with the name, he has a good reason to be reluctant to wear the name himself. Campbell thought that Disciple, which means learner, is a humbler name and more appropriate. It is interesting that people who hesitate to call themselves saint will appropriate the name Christian quite boldly.

“Called” in Acts 11:26

A lengthy paper could be composed on the history of the controversy in the Restoration Movement regarding the name we should wear. It starts as early as 1839 with Alexander Campbell debating the issue in the Harbinger with the editors of The Christian, Heretic Detector, and The Evangelist. As we have seen in the James Challen quotation, it was still a lively topic in the 1864 issue of Lard’s Quarterly. W. W. Eaton, B. W. Stone, Thomas Campbell, Editor Crihfield, and John T. Johnson got into the act, and everybody, except an occasional obscure reader of the Harbinger, was opposed to Campbell’s position.

Stone wrote to Campbell just after his initial articles on “Our Name” as follows:

I am sorry, very sorry, that you have written as you did. I anticipate no good results, but evil. It appears to be uncalled for. We were living in peace and harmony, and the good cause prospering. You well knew the great attachment thousands of us had to the name Christian, and many believed from your writing that you had adopted it as the most appropriate name.

You also knew that many could not conscientiously be called Disciples as a family name. You knew your two warmest friends, J. T. Johnson and myself rejected the title of our Hymn Book because it was called the Disciples’ Hymn Book. Brother Campbell, ought you not to have respected the feelings of so many, who united their energies with yours in promoting the common cause? (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 21)

Campbell always made it clear that while Christian was an acceptable name with him, he wanted the brethren to refrain from “placing it on the footing of a divine oracle and imposing it on others.” It is of human origin, Campbell insisted, and therefore “the attempt to impose that name upon all persons as of divine authority” must be resisted.

He directs his remarks to Stone and other critics when he writes:

Nor were we so ignorant of human nature as to expect that those who have preached a hundred sermons on the — divine and exclusive authority of the name Christian, and wrote a thousand pages, first and last, upon its supernatural charms and sanctions, are to be, all of a sudden, satisfied with any proof that this high and authoritative ground of theirs is neither more nor less than a good-natured and well-meant assumption, of which themselves are not so much the authors as the adopters. (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 23)

The battleground in the discussions that followed was, as one might guess, Acts 11:26: “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” It was argued that called (chreematisai in Greek) implies a divine call, and that thereafter were called or named Christians by God through some revelation either to the church at Antioch or through Paul and Barnabas. Campbell at once conceded that if this were true, it would then be proper to insist that all believers accept it as the name for the Lord’s people.

Campbell was alert to point out that was not his task to prove that “Christian” was of human origin, even though he believed he could, but rather the obligation of his critics to prove the name of divine origin. He was certain this could not be done. In the lengthy exchanges on called in Acts 11:26 he argued as follows:

1. The other instances of chreematisai in the New Testament do not warrant the interpretation of a divine call: Acts 10:22, Mt. 2:12, Lk. 2:26, Heb. 11:7, Rom. 7:3, Heb. 12:25. He observes that in several of these it is an angel or the Spirit that does the calling or warning, and this use of the word in reference to agents inferior to God weakens his opponents’ position. He quotes Dr. George Campbell (the Living Oracles Campbell) that the word in reference to beings inferior to God, and so, to quote the Cambridge scholar, “it does not necessarily imply from God.”

2. The use of the term in Rom. 7:3 (“she shall be called an adulteress”) could hardly mean “She shall, by a revelation from God, be named an adulteress!” It simply means, Campbell argues, that she shall by law or by men be so recognized.

3. The most forceful rebuttal is on Heb. 12:25 where there are two words for speak. One is laleo (the one who speaks or warns from heaven) and the other is chreematisai (the one who speaks or warns on earth). One “warning” is from heaven (Christ); the other from earth (Moses). Campbell shows that more dignity is given to laleo (the warning from Christ) than to chreematisai (the warning from Moses). If chreematisai means to be warned or called by the voice of God, would the writer have used laleo in reference to the Christ and chreematisai in reference to Moses?

4. Campbell goes on to point out that laleo is used “hundreds of times” to express direct communications from God. So with the word kalleo, also meaning to call. When God bestowed a name, as in the case of Jesus, or changed a name, as with Sarah and Israel, it is Kalleo (the Old Testament references of course being from the Septuagint). All this means that it could be argued with equal force that laleo and kalleo suggest a divine call as well as chreematisai.

5. He then shows that chreematisai is from chreema, meaning business. When used in the passive voice, as it is in Acts 11:26, it means to name a man after his business. Such has been the case with such names as Baker, Butler, Shoemaker, Taylor.

Now what can be more natural than that in the great church in the great city of Antioch, in Syria, where there were so many prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and brethren, always preaching about Christ, the Antiochians would chreematize them? — that is, give them the name Christians from their constant devotion to Christ and talk about him. This is, to my mind the most evident origin of the name, and in the most perfect good keeping with the history and meaning of this litigated word. I shall stand for it on the true history and meaning of the word chreematizo against any man in America with all the sacred and profane classics, dictionaries and books that can be assembled from Maine to Georgia. (Mill. Harb. 11, p. 372)

6. “Christian” can be made a divisive name. “There are no Christians in heaven — no Jews in heaven — no divisive names in heaven. But there are saints in heaven, holy brethren and other designations of great age and of unquestionable divine authority.” He then refers to “the new name” that Jesus has promised us in heaven, and he urges all disputants to so live as to be worthy of that new, heavenly name.

This journal hastens to add in conclusion that while it is almost certain that “Christian” is indeed a human name, it is a most appropriate designation for those who sincerely love the Christ and seek to become more like him. We should therefore wear it gladly.

We also conclude that our people should refrain from teaching that “Christian” is the God-appointed name, and thereby chastize other immersed believers who. may not choose to emphasize it as we do. Believing Jews would for instance be justified in rejecting the name.

We agree with Campbell that while “Christian” is a most acceptable human name, a nickname with which we shall happily glorify God, there are other names that are divine in origin which we would give more heed. We are persuaded that Disciple (with either a small or capital D) is the most appropriate of all the scriptural denominations as the unusual or most used name. Disciple means of course Disciple of Christ which is most expressive of what the saint of God chooses to be in his humble but weak efforts to walk in the way of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
 

 

DALLAS STUDY NEXT JULY

The Wynnewood Congregation, 2303 S. Tyler in Dallas, is sponsoring a study on unity and fellowship for the week of next July 4. Carl Ketcherside, Darrell Bolin, and Leroy Garrett are already scheduled to take part, and there will be others. Why not plan your vacation so as to be in Dallas at that time?
 

LOYAL CHURCH?

Many times we have heard it carelessly flung that certain congregations and segments are not the “true church—they are not the loyal church.” May we now ask just which segment among us is the “loyal one”? In order to answer this we must first answer: “loyal to what?” Every single segment among us has its own unwritten creed, party loyalties, traditions, cliches, shibboleths, badges, standards and tests of doctrinal purity. How then are we going to determine loyalty? Reader, don’t reply, “By God’s word of course,” because that is exactly what each segment among us has parroted for years. All of us think we are speaking as the Bible speaks.” — M. F. Cottrell