UNITY IN THE CHRIST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

I thank God for preserving me from that part of the Church of Christ which proclaims itself the one, true, infallible body of Christ on earth. I must confess that the only baptism I have ever received was at the hands of an ordained Baptist “pastor” after receiving a favorable vote to be received into the membership of a Baptist church. I cannot, however, be a party to any sect, and that includes the Baptists as well as the Campbellites.

Therefore, it takes no great courage for me to subscribe to the Restoration Review and to the position on fellowship generally advocated therein. Indeed I agree with the eminent Disciple, Professor W. E. Garrison, who is quoted by the editor as saying that the Lordship of Christ is the basis of unity among all Christians.

However, I have noted a failure, or perhaps an oversight, on the part of the Review in dealing with a vital part of the obviously thorny unity problem. I refer to the lack of definition of or discussion of the content of our confession of Christ and its relevance to Christian unity.

Perhaps we are still inhibited by the ancient Restoration aversion to theological formulations. At any rate I personally cannot see how we can continue to avoid the issue by a simple, rather naive call for a united confession of Jesus as Lord, Christ, or Son of God. The ancient Gnostics, as well as modern counterparts, certainly professed faith in Jesus, but the Apostle John leaves us no room to doubt that he did not consider himself in fellowship with them (II John 7-11). Or, turning to Paul, we are told that the sufficiency of salvation by grace through faith in Christ must be maintained and that those who do not so maintain it have “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). I fear that the gospel as preached in the Churches of Christ has often been compromised in this manner.

It may be argued that the Christological formulations of the ancient creeds are not binding as terms of fellowship. I agree. At the same time the testimony of the Apostles to Jesus is binding. This is how the New Testament may legitimately be used as a basis for fellowship, or rather for testing to determine if fellowship exists. This is not to say that agreement upon all or even any particular detail of the New Testament is essential to fellowship in Christ. I am saying that the Church has always realized that we have no means of knowing Christ apart from the testimony of those men who knew him.

To summarize briefly the point of this little essay, discussion of fellowship must always center in Christ, but that demands a definition of Christ. And any definition of Christ which plainly contradicts or omits certain testimony of the New Testament regarding Christ must be declared defective. No hope of either salvation or fellowship can be placed in a Christ so defined. — Skolops

WHAT IS DENOMINATIONALISM?

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This brief set of questions comes to us from a Missouri reader, M.M. Consider his questions carefully, please, and let us know if you believe you have answers for them. This general theme will be further developed in subsequent issues of the FORUM.)

1. What is denominationalism? Is it simply any religious group other than ourselves? How many non-denominational Christian groups can there be?

2. Is denominationalism defined by a national headquarters and a “sectarian” name, or is it an exclusivist attitude?

3. Is it proper to use the term, “the brotherhood,” in a narrow and restrictive sense? If brotherhood is based on sonship to God, is it not incorrect to use the expression “the brotherhood” to mean anything less than all God’s children? Isn’t our misuse of the term “the brotherhood” actually an expression which conveys the same idea as “our denomination”?

4. How could Christians actually be non-denominational? Is this possible? Can a group be non-denominational by refusing to commit its creeds to writing, refusing to acknowledge a formal ecclesiastical group larger than the local congregation, and proclaiming, “We are not a denomination”?

A SUGGESTION

Is it possible that tradition or custom has ingrained in us a loyalty to one particular translation of the scriptures? If so, do you think that this is a healthy thing? I think not. We may be severely hampered both in our search for the truth and in our teaching if we are dependent upon one version. How much of our conviction must be supported by reference to a passage in one version only? Any idea which depends upon one translation’s exact wording of a verse is doubtless of little value.

It seems almost fantastic to me that Christians have clung for centuries to the King James Version, with an almost idolatrous reverence for it. Some seem to think that any other translation is not a true Bible, that King James language was the language of Jesus and his apostles. Yet the language of the KJV makes it possibly the most difficult of all translations to understand. For the novice student, many passages might as well be deliberately coded — they are so obscure that he needs to be a cryptographer to decipher them. Indeed, the person who can understand the knottiest verses of the KJV can do so only because of training and/or long experience. Furthermore, the KJV is faulty in its renderings and sometimes misleading (for example, it calls the Passover “Easter” and has King Agrippa on the verge of accepting Paul’s gospel). Certainly its mistakes, though, are not so serious a matter as its obscuring vital meanings in so many of its passages. Isn’t it possible that using a translation which employs contemporary, familiar language would make for faster growth in Bible knowledge? Yes, I suggest that each Christian have a copy of a more recent translation to study. He will find it more reliable and helpful than the King James or American Standard Versions.

QUESTIONS

If, in 1 Cor. 7, “only in the Lord” means that widows can remarry only a Christian, does Eph. 6:1 limit obedience of children to Christian parents? — T.L.K.

In Acts 20:7-12, for what sort of “breaking of bread” did the disciples assemble? It says that when they came together Paul spoke to them, and prolonged his speech until midnight. After Eurychus’ accident, Paul went back upstairs and broke bread and ate, and talked a while longer, until daybreak. So Eutychus must have fallen about midnight. Did the disciples then break bread with Paul after midnight, and was this still the first day of the week? Did the early disciples regard the observance of the Lord’s Supper as being necessarily restricted to the first day of the week? I don’t see how we can be so sure that this was the Lord’s Supper, nor that they were so careful to observe that feast on the first day of the week. I would like to know what some others think. — A. A. D.

Is it possible for the scientists to be right about evolution without contradicting the Bible? Is it possible that the earth may have existed for millions of years before the acts of God recorded in Gen. 1 and 2? If so, could some evolution of species have taken place then? Could this account for all the ancient fossils which have been discovered, including those which seem to be remnants of some sort of men, like cave men? — M. Q. F.