PETER LEARNS A LESSON — CAN WE?

It was hard for Peter to learn his lesson. It not only took repetition, that trusted device of every good teacher, to teach Peter his lesson, but it took reminders and miracles as well. Perhaps there were psychological reasons as well as religious that account for the apostle’s slowness to learn. We are told that men seldom learn anything that they do not want to learn. It was Thorn-dike, the psychologist, that talked about the readiness to learn as the first rule of learning. That is what Peter lacked: readiness. It could be true of some of us too.

Peter was a loyal, orthodox Jew, first, last and always. There were some things that a loyal, orthodox Jew simply did not do, and one of those things was to have any fraternization with a Gentile. From the day the fisherman became an apostle there is no reason to believe that he ever envisaged anything respecting the Messiah’s work that was not Jewish-centered, if not exclusively Jewish. At various times in his instructions to his apostles the Master made it clear that his mission reached beyond Judaism, and he finally in the Great Commission included every creature in every nation in the apostles’ preaching itinerary.

Peter failed to catch the force of all this. Had it been left up to him the gospel would have remained with the Jews. But the Spirit had glorious things in view for dear Peter, and he was willing to jar the apostle with a series of soul-searching miracles in order to get the point across. The first came while Peter was sleeping on the housetop while visiting with Simon the tanner. The circumstance was right for the Spirit to begin his instruction, for Peter was showing some compromise with his austerity by accepting hospitality from a tanner, one who worked with the dead bodies of animals and who would therefore be permanently unclean.

There is good psychology here, and it does no harm to suppose that the Spirit certainly knows how to take advantage of the psychology of a situation. Psychologists tell us that if we want to motivate a certain type of behavior we should begin by rewarding (they call it reinforcing) those actions that most approximate the behavior we want, even if it may fall short of our expectation. For Peter to go so far as to enter the home of a tanner, even if a Jew, was certainly a propitious time to attempt to lead him ever further. Peter was dreaming, and there is more psychology there, but we will not get into that except to say that perhaps at last what Jesus had attempted to teach him was at least at play in his unconscious mind.

In the dream of the sheet coming down our of heaven God was reminding Peter that the gospel makes all men clean alike, and that in Christ there is no longer Jew and Gentile. It was so difficult for Peter to call clean what he had always regarded as unclean. Racial prejudice goes deep. One would have thought this magnificent vision and the experience that followed at the home of Cornelius would have been sufficient to convince Peter once for all that God has received the Gentiles too. After all, Peter uttered those striking words: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34) But still Peter had not learned his lesson, not well enough at least.

Two fears always haunted Peter: the fear of breaking with long established tradition, exemplified by his slowness to accept the Gentiles; and the fear of running counter to party loyalties, which is reflected in his conduct in Antioch. Gal. 2:11-14 records the story of how Paul opposed Peter’s conduct of first associating with Gentiles, and then withdrawing “when certain men came from James.” Paul makes it clear that Peter was motivated by fear: “he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”

Even if we concede that Peter deserved the rebuke handed him by Paul, we cannot help but feel pity for him. Fear is a painful experience, and we must realize that we are all often motivated by fear. We need the assurance given us by the Lord: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Lk. 12:32) There is also much thought in 1 John 4:18: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts our fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.”

Can we not see ourselves in Peter? The simple truth is that Peter did not love enough, and thus fell prey to fear. Fear got in the apostle’s way, keeping him from learning the great lesson of brotherhood. Fear of the party has kept men from accepting the Christ: “Nevertheless many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42-43) And it was fear that kept Peter from treating his Gentile brothers as brothers should be treated.

Fear of the party haunts many men who down deep in their hearts want to be as liberal as the gospel itself. Many preachers and elders even in the South would be glad to welcome Negroes to their congregations, but they dare not express such opinions. Christian colleges continue to hold back, hesitant to enroll the first Negro, waiting for the public schools to set the pace. Yes, even in the twentieth century, two thousand years after Peter, we Christians have institutions that we call Christian colleges from which men are barred because of the color of their skin, irrespective of how deserving they may be otherwise or how much they may need the education. So we need not be too hard on Peter.

Fear of the party causes men to act little when they really want to be big. No decent man wants to withhold the usual expression of Christian courtesy from a visiting minister, one that he may even honor as a dear friend, but partyism demands it if the brother happens to be from the Christian Church or holds an unorthodox millennial view. A party-man in the Church of Christ, for instance, would have a hard time saying something like this: “In our audience tonight we have brother John Andrews, minister of the First Christian Church and one of our most respected citizens. We shall ask him to lead our minds in a prayer to the heavenly Father.’”

It is my conviction that many of our leaders would like to be this free, bur they dare not because of the party. There is one thing that partyism cannot tolerate, and that is a non-party man. And yet there is a strange contradiction in all this: take me individually or in small groups and they will reject such party practices and insist that things should change. And yet when those men are with party leaders, as was Peter at Antioch when he showed this inconsistency, they fall in line, toeing the line of tradition once more.

Even the party leaders will sometimes think out loud and say more than they intend. We get reports of how professors in the colleges will downgrade the traditional position on instrumental music or perhaps suggest that Christian Church folk and Baptists should be “fellowshipped” — and then quickly add: “Now this is between you and me.” One interesting report went something like this: “Well, yes, Carl Ketcherside is basically right in what he is saying about fellowship and unity, but you can’t go around saying that.” The reason being: the Church of Christ party will not tolerate it.

Men are basically good; they want to act and think benevolently. The human mind longs to stretch; it wants to be liberal. Partyism stifles intellectual growth and starves man’s thirst for creative brotherhood. The growing Christian mind will be as contented in the presence of a pious Presbyterian or a dedicated Episcopalian as he would be with those who agree with him more. Little minds are uncomfortable in the presence of big minds. The party mind seeks its own level — other party minds — and it revels in depreciating all others. Partyism encourages mediocrity and resents excellence. It brands as heretics all who break its ranks; it castigates as hobbyists all who oppose its own practices.

Peter had to get one point straight, and that is the thing we must all get straight: will I be a party-man and gain the praise of men or will I seek the truth at all cost and gain the praise of God. So long as Peter feared the party his conduct would be predictable: he would follow the party line. It is also predictable what will happen when one declares himself free of the party: the party will apply the pressures at its disposal, including financial reprisal and alienation.

We want to believe that Peter finally learned his lesson in brotherhood. Paul’s sharp rebuke at Antioch should have done it. He at least talked like a convinced man at the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15:7 -9: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.”

One thing is certain: if Peter finally received the Gentiles as his brothers in the Lord without reservation it is because he overcame the fear of his party. So it is with us: if we really believe that whites and Negros are equal in God’s sight, and if we are as happy to sit with them at the Lord’s table as any white brother, it is because the love of God has come to mean more to us than “Southern tradition.” And if we receive a man as our brother, and treat him as a brother, even if there be doctrinal differences (and there always are!), it is because the Holy Spirit has shed abroad that love in our hearts that overshadows party loyalty.

In quotation above from Peter in Acts 15 the phrase “God who knows the heart” we have the reference that will dispel partyism. God knows the heart! The man who seeks to rise above sectarian bigotry has a difficult task. He may have to sacrifice professional standing and financial security. He may well become a fool of God. He most certainly will be misunderstood and looked upon as an enemy by those who would otherwise exalt him. It is a lesson that a man can learn only when he has his values straight — the praise of God is the one thing he wills. The great over-riding principle in it all is that God knows the heart. “The Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1 Sam. 16:7) And the God who knows how to bless!

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN JOURNALISM?

An industrious young man at one of the Christian colleges has completed an interesting survey on “A Study of the Ethics of Christian Journalism.” I have not yet read his full report, but he has sent me a chart that reveals the summary of his findings. This journal was one of the 83 publications that were polled in regards to ethical standards, along with my reply I requested a report of the findings. I also asked the student in what sense he was using the term “Christian Journalism.” I wanted to know if he meant only Church of Christ journalism, which I suspected, knowing something about the parochial environment in which he was studying.

He wrote back that he did indeed mean those publications connected with the Churches of Christ, for he considers all Christians to be members of the Church of Christ. He was kind enough to offer his apologies, for he did not intend to offend me, but supposed that I identified myself with the Church of Christ. My reply to him is given below, which may be of some interest to our readers.

This fine young Texan has given me permission to pass along some of his findings, which appear to me to be both significant and revealing, confirming what I have long suspected from my rather extensive experience with the very ones polled by the brother.

38 per cent said that inaccuracy in publication is not at all serious or only slightly serious.

42 per cent said that plagiarism is either not at all serious (32 per cent) or only slightly serious (10 per cent). This finding shocked even me! Plagiarism is stealing.

30 per cent said that “when convinced of an error failure to admit and correct it” is either not at all serious (25 per cent) or slightly serious (25 per cent).

31 per cent (nearly one-third of those who replied) said that it is not at all serious to publish someone’s name with the deliberate intent of harming him.

61 per cent said it is not at all serious or only slightly serious to state one view and exclude all others. This point needs clarification, for it quite obviously depends upon the nature of the material presented. If it is a controversial issue among the brethren, it is one thing; if it is as essay on the nature of man, it is another. Anyway, 50 per cent stated that this is most prevalent or moderately prevalent in Church of Christ papers.

29 per cent said it is not serious at all to make a personal attack upon a brother without fair investigation. Is not this amazing?

44 per cent (upward of half the editors, mind you) said that the “publication of evil reports, though while true, will not serve any purpose by their publication,” is either not serious at all (34 per cent) or only slightly serious (10 per cent).

40 per cent said it is not at all serious to stir up controversy to increase circulation. Only 48 percent considered it most serious.”

Now the letter:

Thank you very kindly for your letter and for the chart on your findings on journalistic ethics among our brethren.

If I understand your chart, it seems that you might have to get beyond what you call “Christian journalism” to find much moral sensitivity. Were you not stunned to find such substantial percentages falling into your “not serious” and “slightly serious” categories on some of your vital criteria of ethics?

You have 44% who say it is not serious or only slightly serious to stir up controversy in order to increase circulation. You have over one. third who say plagiarism is not serious — upward of half the editors say it is either not serious or only slightly serious! You have 29% willing to attack others without fair investigation!

Thank you also for answering my question as to what you meant by “Christian journalism.” I should think that your view that “Christian journalism” is limited to what we call the Church of Christ publications is a most parochial concept. I am glad to notice that you refer to those who use instrumental music as your brethren, and yet I take it that you do not think of them as members of the Church of Christ. If they are your brethren, then they are Christians, and their publications might well be “Christian journalism” also, might they not?

Take such fine, spiritual, high-level publications as Eternity, His, and Christianity Today. These you would not think of as Christian publications, I take it, while the Gospel Guardian and Firm Foundation are Christian journals. May I conclude that Eternity would become a Christian journal if B. C. Goodpasture should become its editor, thus bringing it within the orbit of what we call the Church of Christ?

I am not so sure but what this provincial view of yours would exclude the journals of our pioneers in whose veins flowed printer’s ink. Had he been living today you would hardly have included Alexander Campbell and his Christian Baptist in your survey of Christian editors, for he was still a Baptist back in those days. I suppose your view means that in all the history of modern literature and publication there is no Christian journalism to be found before the birth of the Gospel Advocate and the American Christian Review, for these were the first honest-to-goodness “Church of Christ” publications.

Your equation of “Christian journalism” with Church of Christ publications reminds me of the book currently being published by the Firm Foundation entitled “History of the Church in Texas,” which of course means “History of the Church of Christ in Texas.” Now, my dear brother, must we be so parochial as to suppose that a history of the church in Texas should be a history of the Church of Christ only. The book should be entitled according to what it is: the history of one particular church within Christendom, which is of course a most legitimate historical subject. But this business of equating the Church of Christ with the church is both offensive and arrogant. And so with your thesis: thinking people will wonder how a student in a liberal arts college could come to the place that he would think of “Christian journalism” as limited to the publications of his own religious party. This is why I thought you would do better to call your thesis “A Study of the Ethics of Church of Christ Journalism,” or some such limitation.

Thinking people might also wonder about the intellectual integrity of an educational institution that would permit such parochial thinking. I venture to say you will not find such parochialism even in Roman Catholic circles.

You certainly did not offend me in suggesting that I identify myself with the Church of Christ. It is simply that I do not seek alliance with any party within Christendom, whether it be the Christian Church, Church of Christ or any other. I wish to be a disciple at large. I do not belong to any party or its sub-parties. I seek to belong only to the Christ. Why cannot I belong only to Him, which will make me a member of his Body, the Catholic church of God on earth, and to no party at all? Certainly the Church of Christ people are my brethren, but they are not the only brethren I have, for all those who believe in the Christ and submit to his Lordship are my brethren.

I would define “Christian journalism” as all publication efforts that endeavor to honor the Christ, interpret his word, unite and edify the children of God. This means that I might be reluctant to call some journals “Christian” that you do, for they are but organs of partyism, while there are many others that I would think of as “Christian” that you would not so classify, for they are Christian in both their purpose and their ethics. It is probable that the Christian character of a journal is a relative thing, for sometimes it will be more Christian than at other times, just as in the case of an individual. But a journal that is dedicated to the glory of God and the Christ should certainly be thought of as Christian, even though it may sometimes err in its efforts. A publication dedicated to the task of protecting and preserving the interests of the party spirit or economic interests can hardly be Christian in any real sense, but in pretense only.

EICHMANN’S TWO JUDGMENTS

One cannot help but be impressed with William Hull’s account in Eternity Magazine of his struggle for the soul of Eichmann. The missionary, with whom Eichmann agreed to study the Bible, gives an extended account of this experience in his forthcoming book, “The Struggle for a Soul.” In the magazine story he relates some of the interesting interviews that he had with the condemned man.

Mr. Hull is to be appreciated for his effort to let God speak to Eichmann in the words of the Bible itself. The missionary said little or nothing by way of interpretation, but simply had the prisoner turn to the various verses and read for himself in a German Bible. He says of his visits: “To begin with it was a duty mission rather than a visit of compassion and mercy, but as time went on I struggled against a God-given feeling of pity and affection for the soul of Adolf Eichmann.” There were 13 visits in all extending over a period of 50 days.

The most impressive feature of Hull’s effort is the way he started. Even though Eichmann revealed no sense of guilt at all, even saying “I know God; I have never lost touch with God,” the missionary proceeded to have him read concerning the judgment of God. “I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him. (Lk. 12 :4-5). The missionary’s wife read the German aloud while Eichmann followed in the Bible they had given him. From there on it was Bible, Bible, Bible. When Eichmann rebelled against some verses that spoke of hell, insisting “I do not believe in hell,” Mr. Hull would not argue, but would simply have Eichmann turn to other passages, such as “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecc. 12:14)

It must have been a sobering experience for Eichmann when Mr. Hull pointed out that Eichmann had thus far been judged only by men’s judgment. He had passed through a long trial. He had been condemned to die by a human court. But to kill a body is all that man can do. Eichmann has yet another trial to face — the judgment of God! Mr. Hull’s initial lesson on the two judgments was most appropriate.

The missionary gives no indication that the prisoner was touched with the precious words of truth. But it is gratifying to know that a serious effort was made to reach him in his last days upon earth. Mr. Hull humbly acknowledged that someone else might have done a better job than he and his wife did, or that a different approach might have been more effective. The important thing is that Eichmann was confronted with the Christ in the pages of Holy Writ itself.

What is true of Eichmann is true of us all. We too have two judgments to face, and it may well be true that we are often more concerned with what man thinks than what God thinks. The praise of men has always been most enticing. God is our loving heavenly Father, but he is also Judge of us all. Woe be unto us if we are more sensitive about the judgment of men than of God. On that “fixed day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed” it will matter little what men have said. The plaudits of the crowd will mean nothing. Our big budgets, real estate holdings, large crowds, programs, and all the rest-including degrees and honors and being a big man in the brotherhood — will be quite beside the point. Each man will stand before the Christ on his own, right along with Eichmann, and it is that judgment that matters — and oh how it does matter! May God be with us all.

AS OTHERS SEE US

By means of a “Letter from America,” written by an Episcopal priest in Nashville to his friend in England, we get a candid view of what others think of us who compose the Church of Christ — Christian Church brotherhood. The rector is apparently an Englishman, or recently from England, and he writes these letters back home telling about all aspects of American life, secular as well as religious. In Letter No. 3 he tells of the excitement over the Cuban crisis in his own parish, of how the flock was gathered for prayer, and he mentions that the experience gave Americans a new appreciation of the British, who have lived in such crises for generations, referring to having enemy guns so near their own shore.

He also talks about the weather, prosperity, United Fund, Credit Union, politics, and the Hermitage. He also has a word to say about the Church of Christ and Christian Church, providing us with a rare insight as to what some highly respected churchmen really think of us. Speaking of “such sects unknown to us in England as ‘The Christian Church’ and ‘The Church of Christ”’, he says:

For believe it or not there are actually splinter groups in the American religious scent who have the effrontery to arrogate such titles exclusively to themselves. I had always regarded myself as both a Christian and a member, however unworthy and fallible, of the Church of Christ. I had to come to America to learn that you could be one without being the other, and that we who (mistakenly it seems) had been bold enough to think ourselves as both Christians and members of Christ’s Church were in fact neither.

He then says the following good word:

But having shot my bolt, and feeling the better for it, let me hasten to give praise where praise is due. These people have deep convictions, and are prepared to pay for them. Their churches are fine modern buildings, beautifully maintained. The social work which I shall instance, as the judge described it, costs time and money . . .

He goes on to tell how these churches help their delinquent youth.

No good, intelligent man, as this Anglican obviously is, can criticize us for believing that we are right. But he has the right to resent our strongly implied claim that we are the only ones that are right — that we indeed are right and everybody else is wrong!

There is a big difference between being Christian only and being the only Christians. A large part of our brethren in the Christian Church (the Disciples) have overcome exclusivism, recognizing that they are another denomination in the church at large, or at least as a movement for unity and restoration within divided Christendom. But the conservative wing of the Christian Church is every whit as bad as the various groups called Church of Christ in their claims for priority.

The one glorious exception in the Church of Christ wing of discipledom is the group known as “the premillennial churches,” which probably number about 150 congregations. They do not believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. Even on the matter of millennial interpretations, they do not make their own belief any kind of “test of fellowship.” Regardless of one’s view on when or how the Lord comes, these brethren not only welcome him, but encourage him to share their program. They make no distinctions among brethren. They are to be commended for this. Neither do they believe that all the Christians are cornered off in what we call the Church of Christ.

Any of us could recall numerous instances where this arrogance on our part is resented. Must we believe that a man cannot be a Christian because he happens to be an Episcopalian or a Methodist? Has it ever dawned on us that they just might possibly be better Christians than we are? Arrogance is not a lovely virtue — and anybody who thinks he’s right and everybody else wrong is arrogant! Let us keep in mind the prayer of the publican: “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” Jesus liked that man better than the Pharisee who was so blooming right about everything.
 

 

With this number of Restoration Review we begin our fifth year of publication, the eleventh year since Bible Talk. Following this fifth volume Restoration Review will be published on monthly basis, but the subscription price will remain the same. We urge you to renew your subscription at once.

The next two numbers will feature some outstanding essays on unity and fellowship by Carl Ketcherside, lengthy treatments of Agape: The Basis of Christian Fellowship and The Grounds for Christian Unity.

Tell your friends about Restoration Review. Send your renewal today! Include the names of four of your friends, all for only $5. Restoration Review, 1916 Western Dr., Alton, Illinois.