EDITORIAL NOTES

I wish to thank our readers who have contributed articles and sent letters to Truth Seekers’ FORUM, and those who have expressed interest in other ways. Your response has been encouraging. We have had some negative comments, but most have been of the sympathetic sort; we welcome both. I would like to renew the invitation to all readers to submit any material which they believe to be of importance. The most suitable items should be brief (one or two double-spaced, typewritten pages) and must be written in a constructive spirit.

Please note the change of address for this column, as follows: Curtis H. Lydic, Box 5071, NTSU Station, Denton, Texas. Please send all materials and correspondence to that address.

FREEDOM, THEN WHAT?

I am disturbed by a phenomenon which seems to be attendant in some cases upon the liberation of the spirit which comes from honest reexamination of things believed and the rejection of human authority. It seems highly regrettable to me if one succeeds only in exchanging one sort of error for another. Some have said that those who think as we do have done just that; we would like to hope that with God’s merciful assistance we might avoid the second error. But I believe that some of my brothers have graduated from one error to another, and I hope that I may be able to define the problem, as I see it, with sufficient clarity and force to cause others to consider the matter seriously.

A common element in the experience of many who have lived a number of years in association with Church of Christ organization, teaching, and leadership policy is disillusionment. As a younger man I taught, and easily accepted, that the organized Church of Christ was identical with that universal fellowship of the saved which is referred to in the scriptures as “the church.” Accordingly, I spoke publicly in these terms and conducted myself in relations with our “denominational friends” as a spokesman for the “true way” to which they all needed to turn. Also, I was exceedingly impressed by the fine and honest concern for the truth which my brethren manifested. “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” “Come, and let us reason together.” “The Church of Christ urges you to investigate its claims.” I was conditioned by this kind of reverence for truth to be open-minded, and to enter upon study and discussion with what at least approached nonbias (we were always cautioning these “denominational friends” to watch those “preconceived ideas.”

The natural result of all this was disappointment, when it became evident that the invitation to subject the claims of the Church of Christ to critical review was a diplomatic device designed to entice people into discussions in which, since we were right and they were wrong, the only change of convictions must be on their part. Members of the Church of Christ who essay a similar critical examination of the church’s doctrines or policies soon learn that this indulgence is not meant for them. They learn, in fact, that such examination is risky; it can be conducted with complete impunity only if it leads to no negative conclusions.

In a church where individual liberty is taught and claimed as fact for public purposes, it is natural that some disgust should arise upon discovering that this kind of liberty is theoretical only. Then, when attempts are made to act and speak as a free man, only to result in reprisals of one kind or another, it is equally natural for one to denounce the whole system and resolve to have no part of it from then to eternity. I am sure that large numbers of Christians have found themselves so inclined, after years of frustration and grief.

The thing which troubles me about this is that the natural reaction to such experience may not be the right reaction in spiritual terms. It may be understandable without being justifiable. I know of at least three cases in which the course of action seems to be quite negative, in which, apparently, the brotherly relationship (with attendant obligations) is repudiated. In such a case, it seems to me, one has escaped from one unfortunate ensnarement only to become captive to another; namely irresponsibility. I think I have seen signs of a sort of scholarly interest in the pros and cons of Church-of-Christism, in these who have fled from it, but without a real, personal concern. There is, apparently, a reluctance to get involved with “the church” again, having wriggled free from its peculiar yoke. It is so much easier to say, “Uh, uh. I’ve had my share of ‘churchanity’, and I’ll be on my own from here, if you don’t mind.” It actually is more pleasant and stimulating, I suppose, to resort to a more private contemplation of truth and to share thoughts with one or two others, occasionally, who “speak the same language.” It is, as I have suggested, understandable that one would feel this way; but is it right, is it in keeping with Christian values, to follow such a course? I think that it is not.

What is the good of having passed through the mist of ignorance into the light of new knowledge if in so doing one leaves behind the sort of concern for his brethren and the sort of sympathetic understanding which are both necessary if his new knowledge is to have any constructive potential? Had Jesus experienced that sort of “graduation” his death would have been in vain. Unless one considers himself no longer a Christian, rather than no longer Church-of-Christ, how can he fail to have an abiding, motivating concern for those of God’s people who are still trying to see through “the veil of Moses”? Beloved brother, when you have passed beyond the kind of love which would forbid personal detachment, you have passed beyond Christ. What of those who still labor under the false values of legalism or partyism? There, but for the grace of God, you would be; have you no obligation to them? Choose whether you will help your “neighbor” in the ditch, fallen there by blind leadership, or will “pass by on the Other side.” — FORUM Editor

ON BEING SHUTOUT

Recently a local newspaper carried a large advertisement for a large local Church of Christ which consisted mainly of a welcome to university students returning at the end of the summer. The reader was told that there were four congregations of the church of Christ in the city, and the four were named. This announcement is of special interest to some of us because of the fact that there are actually several more than “four congregations” in this city, at least three in addition to those named. The writer or writers of the advertisement were not unaware of the existence of these other congregations; they would simply rather not admit their existence. It is a simple matter of some Christians refusing to recognize the Christianity of others, much as our government sometimes refuses to grant official recognition to another government for diplomatic purposes. As a member of one of the three congregations not mentioned, I think I get the point. It is the same old story; because I do not belong to the party represented by the advertisement I am not to be counted as a Christian. The congregation which does not adhere to the party line is not to be counted as a “church of Christ.” Surely there are going to be some surprised looks when the Lord comes to claim all his own.

— FORUM Editor

REACTIONS TO READING

Brother LaVern Houtz, Professor of History at Southeastern Christian College, Winchester, Kentucky, is the author of a booklet entitled A History of the Premillenial Churches of Christ. The material was originally presented as a series of lectures at the Church of Christ Bible Chair at Hammond, Louisiana, and the booklet is published by the Bible Chair.

The booklet, 43 pages in length, is a very readable and interesting summary of the persistence of fundamentalist churches through the Middle Ages, and of the development of the premillenial Church of Christ fellowship as an outgrowth of the Restoration Movement of the 19th Century. Brother Houtz is known as a mature and sensible leader in the church and as a very able teacher. In his review of the events which led to the division between those of the premillenial and amillenial persuasions he is altogether fair and kind, and not one word is said which would be offensive to even the most touchy of those who oppose the premillenial position.

This book is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the background of present day churches, and should be considered a must for those members of amillenial Churches of Christ who do not know what premillenialism really is (there are too many of us who have been opposed to it but who could not define it if it were a matter of life or death). Brother Houtz’s treatment is not a short course in the premillenial point of view, nor is it propagandistic, but it will serve to help one understand why there is such a viewpoint and what part it has had in the history of modern Churches of Christ. — FORUM Editor

THE UNIVERSAL COHESIVE

Water is called “the universal solvent.” A solvent is an agent which has the ability to dissolve a substance. Water is the universal solvent because so many substances will dissolve in it. Dissolution involves the breaking down of a substance, or causing the particles of that substance to separate. For example, when water is removed from a saline solution by evaporation, the particles cohere and form crystals; if water is then added again, the crystals disintegrate into smaller particles once more.

The element with which we are concerned in this discussion is in one sense a solvent and in another a cohesive, in spiritual matters. That element is love.

Love is a solvent in that it dissolves the toxins which find their way into the spiritual body; toxins such as pride, hatred, fear, envy all things we are familiar with. In the presence of love these things shrink as the demons shrank in the presence of the Son of God. Even party spirit cannot flourish or live in the atmosphere of love.

Love is a cohesive — the great cohesive — in that it can bind together where nothing else can. A column of bricks will stand without mortar if the column is not too high and if it is not disturbed. This is because the bricks, being identical, fit rather well together. This is unity through conformity, and though it may look very neat it is very susceptible to destruction by the least jarring or turn of the wind. With the proper use of mortar, stones may be built together which are quite unlike one another in form, and can constitute a very sturdy column indeed. These stones are bound together by a special agent, and so men may be bound together by love when there seems to be little else to unite them; Jew and Greek, black and white, conservative and liberal — FORUM Editor