WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY DIALOGUE?

Under this title, Dr. Howard Short, Editor of THE CHRISTIAN (Aug. 14, 1966) wrote the following editorial concerning an article that appeared recently in the FIRM FOUNDATION, written by Hulen Jackson. It is followed by some observations of our own.

—THE EDITOR

The denominations that consider themselves fully representative of the New Testament Church have quite a problem in this new day of cordiality among Christians. Many of the leaders in such groups feel that they ought to make their witness in the midst of other Christians but they don’t see how they can sit down as equals.

One observes this ferment among the churches of Christ, in particular (they spell churches with the small letter). Unable to see themselves as a denomination, their problem is accentuated. Many of them will go and make a speech on their concept of the Church, in much the same manner that Roman Catholic priests often did, prior to the Second Vatican Council. Some would like to consider this an entrance into the modern ecumenical dialogue. But it isn’t! A dialogue is not made up of two monologues.

As one minister wrote recently, “Generally, churches of Christ stand ready to discuss the truths of God with anyone anywhere. But, they don’t stand ready to admit maybe we don’t have all the truth (Italics ours) on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, the plan of human redemption, etc.” What all is included in the etcetera isn’t known, but already enough has been said to preclude any dialogue with this brother.

It is argued that the churches of Christ are “the Lord’s church” and that the growth of the group since World War II is proof of the fact. However, it is admitted that “our foreign mission work was almost nil” prior to this period. One seems to recall that they claimed to be “the Lord’s church” in those days of disobedience to the Great Commission, also.

While complimenting them upon their discovery of heretofore ignored biblical teaching, one might wonder how a writer could now assume that at last they have “all the truth.” Might it not be that if they were to sit down with other Christians, as equals, desiring above every desire to share every good thing, with no intention of giving up any revealed truth, and no expectation of such from the other parties, they might possibly gain new knowledge of truth?

The churches of Christ have much to share with the church world. Hulen L. Jackson, writing in Firm Foundation (June 28, 1966), argues that there is no way for the “churches” to do so because “no one could speak or agree for anyone else in the New Testament church.”

In the same article, however, he argues all the way through that there is unity in “the Lord’s church,” as if it were a tightly knit body, agreed in doctrine and polity, with nothing to learn from any other Christians. Given such a unity, and it is a unity, from our observation, why couldn’t anyone of these two million people sit in dialogue with other Christians and witness to his faith? Why couldn’t he listen to someone else to whom God has also spoken? This is dialogue.

The suggestion is made that “debates,” after the fashion of another generation, might be in order. They are even defined as a kind of dialogue. Nothing could be farther from dialogue than a debate. The debater sits with bated breath, waiting for a slip, a loophole, a possible misstatement of fact, so he can pounce upon his opponent and win the plaudits of his friends in the audience. In dialogue, all egotism is laid aside. One isn’ looking for blue ribbons in a debating society. He is sharing with his fellows what God has said to him. If perchance God hasn’t said anything to the other fellow that is worth taking home to ponder, at least one has humbly offered what he has.

In the same issue of Firm Foundation there is a plea from a young man for support in his plans to go to Indonesia. He states categorically: “As of now there are no Christians and no missionaries among the 106 million people.”

We thought of the scene in Hanover, Germany, in 1952, when we sat as a fraternal delegate to the Third World Lutheran Federation Assembly, and heard the Batak Christians of Indonesia being accepted into the Federation. What an evangelistic fervor these Bataks have!

A little glimpse in a history book reveals that the Portuguese took Christianity to Indonesia in the sixteenth century. There are some five million Christians there now, over six per cent of the population. A June report says anti-Communist reaction has brought “unprecedented mass movements to the churches.”

We thought of our late friend, Hendrik Kraemer, who first took Christianity to Bali, a part of Indonesia. And we thought of the interesting and enthusiastic letters from our own Don and Frances West in Tomohon. But we are told: “There are no Christians in Indonesia!”

It will be of no concern to the churches of Christ what we have to say on this topic. They are too numerous to feel any need for our advice. It is only because we hope the discussion might be helpful to some of our own people that we raise it. There is no wonder that the churches of Christ raise the question, “What do they mean by dialogue?” The total ignorance of the topic is obvious. It’s too bad. The New Testament is full of dialogue.

COMMENT

It is incredible that the Movement launched in this country by such free men as Barton Stone, Raccoon Smith, and Alexander Campbell should ever reach the place in its history that an attitude would develop such as that expressed by at least two writers in the Firm Foundation of June 28th. One writer revealed in no uncertain terms that he believes there are neither Christians nor missionaries in countries like Indonesia until the Church of Christ goes there. This has to mean, of course, that after several hundreds of years of missionary activity by various denominations, there are still no Christians there, not even a few. But once our brethren move in and get a congregation started, there will be at least a few Christians and at least one true missionary.

Even though other brethren from within our own Restoration Movement have long been engaged in preaching Christ in Indonesia, we are still willing to tell the world that until our people in the Church of Christ arrive in that country there are no Christians there. This is almost more than some of us can take, despite all the conditioning we’ve had. No wonder a rebellion is brewing! We can’t expect our young men to get themselves an education and to become growing, magnanimous Christians who are in touch with the crucial problems facing the world, and yet accept such bigotry as this.

The other point of view, expressed by brother Hulen Jackson, shows how little we know about communicating with others. The brother admits that he does not know how to sit down and talk with his neighbor on equal ground. We are asked to believe that we must speak with others on the basis of showing them the truth. After all, the other fellow can’t show us any truth if we already have all the truth. If we sit with the Methodists and Baptists, it must be to expose their errors. Otherwise we are not sound. Certainly this is not dialogue. It is tyranny, based on the notion of our own infallibility.

Brother Jackson has every right to believe he holds vital and precious truths respecting baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the plan of salvation. No one is being asked to surrender any truth he holds. But it is one thing to believe that you have the truth and another thing to believe that you have all the truth, and that no one else has any that he might teach you. It is proper to believe that we are right, but improper for us to suppose that we are right and everybody else wrong. This is an attitude of infallibility that challenges anything that has ever come from Rome.

But the comforting thing about all this is that these attitudes too often reflected in the Firm Foundation are becoming increasingly unrepresentative of Churches of Christ. (I am a heretic, you know, so I use the capital “C,” and besides I believe in good grammar, despite my difficulties with it.) I wrote Editor Short that what he had read in the Firm Foundation represents a dying orthodoxy-still alive and kicking, to be sure, but dying nonetheless. The young princes among us are demanding more charity and more spiritual discernment. Some of them are writing critically about these very things, and even if they do get themselves fired, as in one very recent incident in Abilene, we are encouraged to believe that better days lie ahead. Changes will become so substantial in a few more years that men who now voice these negativisms in places like the Firm Foundation will have to learn more charity if they keep their jobs. And from what I’ve observed about our professionalism in the pulpit through the years, I am sure that this will do the trick. Men can even learn what dialogue really means if a paycheck depends upon it.

And yet all of this serves as a reminder that we yet have much to do. When our leading journals reveal such ignorance of dialogue, and when our missionaries go to nations where Christianity is 400 years old, supposing that they are the only semblance of the religion of Christ in the land, it is apparent that our work of self-evaluation has hardly more than begun.

We thank Editor Short for his criticism. If we have done nothing else, we have shown he was not quite right in his last paragraph. But he knows he’s not infallible. He’s trying to tell us that we might not be too! —the Editor