I HAVE NO “ERSTWHILE BRETHREN”!

The following paragraph from a letter sent to us by a prominent evangelist in the Church of Christ calls for comment that may be of general interest.

You have come a long way, Brother Garrett, since you once wrote to me, asking assistance in meeting Dr. D. N. Jackson, Baptist, in debate. It would appear that you now have much, much more in common with Dr. Jackson and his people than with your erstwhile brethren.

I was but a preacher boy in ACC when I wrote this older and more experienced brother to help me in my first debate with a Baptist preacher, and since I was by an unusual circumstance starting at the top, I was most certainly in need of help. So of course I have come a long way, regardless of the direction, as all men do in a quarter of a century. I could never have imagined when I wrote this brother that I would in years to come be debating him!

While the idea of public debate is within itself sound, I am now persuaded that our people are not yet mature enough spiritually to engage in them dispassionately and without party spirit. They doubtless have some teaching value, but they hardly make for peace among brethren. I recall how one debate I conducted with another Church of Christ minister under a large tent in Nashville ended in a near riot. And yet I think my debates, whether with our own ministers or with Baptists, were about as free of strife as could be expected, but I cannot say that they brought people closer together.

One amusing exception is the time a minister of a prominent Church of Christ in Dallas arrived at one of my debates a little late, and happened to take the first available seat. As the debate progressed that evening a rather vituperative rooting section developed on the front tow. The group of Church of Christ ministers, all of whom were practicing what I was opposing, left no doubt as to whose side they were on. The minister who had arrived late gradually worked his way across the auditorium and down the proper aisle until finally he was sitting with his buddies in the rooting section! One of my brothers in the flesh, who had no particular interest in the issues being debated but who has much interest in human nature, watched with amazement as this preacher from the big church, ordinarily a man of substantial dignity, worked his way to the little crowd of preachers, most of whom served small churches and were not the men whose company this prominent minister usually sought. But that particular night they had mote than usual in common!

To this day my brother recalls that as one of the funniest things he ever saw, as well as a most interesting study of human nature. But this is not what I mean by brethren being drawn closer together! As a rule debates do not bring out the best that is in men, and when they assemble on such occasions it is most probably partisan. And I have seen this on “my” side as much as the “other” side. Our intentions may be noble, and without doubt we convince ourselves that it is the truth we are seeking, but the psychology of the thing is against us.

Instead of debates we should have forums and panels, conducted in such a way that the audience can ask questions at appropriate times. Instead of inviting champions of partisan views to clash with each other before dissenting factions of “loyal” brethren, let several representative brethren with diverse views explore ideas together. This would be more conducive to peace and understanding, and it would indeed draw us closer together.

This applies to debates with “sectarians” as well as among ourselves. We have too long indulged ourselves in that forensic art that only deepens the party lines that divide men. We must rather give ourselves to the holy task of building bridges of understanding. This is not to say that a debate might not be conducted that will be conductive to Christian unity, but we, are saying that within the context in which we have debated in our generation it is highly unlikely that such a contest will contribute to “preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

So much for debates, except to add that I love and appreciate the brother who wrote the letter just as much as if I had never debated him! I can say of all my brethren in Christ with whom I sometimes quarreled, that I deeply love them all, despite the carnage; and that I regard them as beloved brethren in spite of all the differences.

And let me assure the evangelist that I have no erstwhile brethren. I have brothers and sisters in Christ (period) Surely some of them are Baptists, though not because they are Baptists but because they are in Christ, and Dr. Jackson may be one of them. This would be irrelevant to whether we agreed on the possibility of apostasy or when the church was established, or even on baptism for remission of sins, the subjects we debated. Men can be brothers and still differ on such questions.

If I should now have a letter from Dr. Jackson after all these years, telling me he now shares my interpretation of those subjects we debated, I would consider him no more or no less my brother in Christ. It is not doctrinal agreements that make men one. It is relationship with a Person. Those brethren who agree with everything I say in this journal, if there are any, are no more my brethren than those who disagree with everything I say.

I am thinking of my dear friend and brother, Ralph Graham, with whom I attended ACC and worked as a fellow minister for many years in the Church of Christ, who is now the pastor of a Christian Church. He is no erstwhile brother of mine. He is still the same brother in Christ that he has always been. He may be wrong about some things, as I am sure I must be, and I certainly disagree with him on some matters, as I always have. But he doesn’t have to work within the framework of the Churches of Christ to remain my brother. He only has to remain in Christ.

I am thinking of that great woman, Laurie Hibbett of Nashville, who was born and bred in the Church of Christ, but who is now an Episcopalian. I know something of the trials through which this dear sister has passed in her spiritual pilgrimage. Both she and Ralph Graham tell their stories in the forthcoming book, Voices of Concern, and I hope every reader of this editorial will make it a point to read those testimonials. Laurie Hibbett is no erstwhile sister in Christ. She is my beloved sister because she is a child of the same Father I am. She can join every denomination in Nashville, including the Church of Christ, and she will still be my sister. I may not agree with her on some things, and I certainly could not join the Episcopalians, but she is my sister just the same, not because she is an Episcopalian but in spite of it.

So with the evangelist who wrote to me. He is my brother in spite of his Church of Christism. I have no cousins or half-brothers in Christ, nor do I have former or erstwhile brothers. I have brothers. Just as with my brothers in the flesh. I am not more kin to the ones that agree with me more. Those with whom I fuss the most are equally my brothers. It is not how much we have in common in matters of opinion, but the fact that we are sons of the same father.

The evangelist in his letter refers to “Dr. Jackson and his people” in the typical separatist fashion. It is difficult for him to see that the Baptists may also be the Lord’s people. After all, they too are immersed believers. It is only in recent history that we have had this exclusive view toward the Baptists. Our pioneers always thought of the Baptists as their brethren, even when they were opposing their party name and creeds. Alexander Campbell expressed regret that we ever had to break with the Baptists, and he believed to his dying day that it could have been avoided. Raccoon John Smith wouldn’t leave the Baptists even when they tried to kick him out! As late as the days of James Harding the Baptists were accepted as brothers, despite differences. In his debate with the renowned J. B. Moody, brother Harding kindly spoke to him as “Brother Moody” all through the debate. And it wasn’t until recent years, at the birth of the Firm Foundation in fact, that any of our preachers dreamed of re-baptizing a Baptist. David Lipscomb opposed this partisan practice all his editorial life in the Gospel Advocate.

If I should hazard a guess, I would say that I have no more in common with “Dr. Jackson and his people” than I did when I debated him, if “in common” has reference to the propositions we discussed. I have no more sympathy for “Baptist doctrine” now than I did then. I just have less sympathy for “Church of Christ doctrine.” I don’t believe in any creed that separates brethren, whether it be Baptist or Church of Christ, whether written or unwritten.

What our good brother evangelist needs to see is a new context for the term common. We may have little in common with a man like Dr. Jackson when it comes to something like the Baptist Manual, and yet we may share with him the common life in Christ. And how blessed that is! It hides a multitude of sins and transcends party lines. Men are brothers because of what Christ has done for them, not because of what they have done for each other. They come to love each other and to accept each other because Christ first loved and accepted them. We are drawn close to one another by being drawn close to Him. If Dr. Jackson walks in that Light, and if I walk in that Light, then we enjoy Life in the Son together, regardless of how far apart we may be in our thinking on apostasy. This is the only common ground that really matters, and this is the ground of unity and fellowship.

“And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.’‘’ (Mk. 3:32-35)