What I Think About . . .

OUR ROLE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR HARMONY
By THOMAS LANGFORD

The great ecumenical councils of the Christian world bear witness to the growing awareness of the evangelistic impotence of a divided Christendom. After all, what confidence can a sick world have in the prescription of a physician who languishes in a disease of his own making? Jesus’ prayer “that they may all be one. . . that the world may believe . . .” is coming more and more to be recognized as the long neglected key to successful evangelism. But the unity Jesus prayed for is not arrived at easily when hundreds of years have been given to erecting barriers to inhibit it.

But one of the real ironies of the current situation is that the very movement which came into existence “to unite the Christians in all sects” is not in a position today to provide leadership, or even to participate, as a single force, in the broader ecumenical dialogue. At the very moment in history when Christendom is most ready to listen, there are no longer any Alexander Campbells, no Barton Warren Stones, to rally restorationist forces, to make the ideal which did so much in the last century valid again as a biblical approach to worldwide Christian unity. It is true that there are voices, here and there, which rise above the factional framework and speak in the Campbell tradition. But, although these have accomplished much and given hope to many who long for unity, they have thus far not made the impact that must be made if our own movement is to speak to the broader Christian world.

It is common knowledge that the restoration movement of Campbell, Stone, and others is now stalled by division into three major and many minor divisions, each so concerned with its own factional integrity that it has lost the broad perspective of pre-division days. The Church of Christ (in all its varieties) is hungup on its frantic concern for creedal and doctrinal regularity. The Disciples seem singly motivated by the desire to restructure themselves (against the protests of a sizable dissenting group within their ranks) into some sort of manipulable unit that will be responsive to merger with other denominations. Other dissenting Disciples, already regarded as the Independent Christian Church, are frequently found to be fluctuating between a Strong reactionary stance with increased desire for creedal emphasis, out of fear of the Disciples’ digression, and a more tolerant attitude which seeks to stem the tide by maintaining contact with the Disciples ranks as long as possible.

These generalizations do not take into account, of course, the great numbers of individuals within all of these groups who interpret their loyalties in terms of the whole church, who “discern the Body,” and not just the faction they happen to be associated with. These persons may constitute a far more significant force than can be easily identified. They operate no publishing houses and publish no statistics, but their number is growing and their influence “leaveneth the whole lump.” They refuse to be limited by party boundaries or to be segregated into a separate party themselves. Wherever they go, they insist that loyalty to Christ is more important than loyalty to party and that whoever is Christ’s brother and a child of God is their brother.

Perhaps it is the message of these individuals that is nearest, after all, to the message of Campbell, and, more important, of Christ. Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” It is trite but true that what brings men to Christ brings them together. Just as Christ’s ascent to the cross purchased salvation for all men, so his exaltation in the preaching of the gospel today draws men to him and the salvation he offers. Lifting up Christ draws men together. Exalting factional interpretations of his doctrines divides men. Exalting denominational aims and party loyalties divides men. It is not likely that our division and the consequent ineffectiveness of our witness to the world are strong evidences of the fact that, whatever else we’ve done or not done, we’ve not really lifted Christ, in our teaching to the church and our preaching to the world? Factions are not the fruit of the Spirit, but the works of the flesh. Wherever they exist the Spirit, which would exalt Christ, has not been followed.

It has been said that Christianity’s two greatest questions are: “What think ye of Christ?” and “What will you do with Jesus?” Alexander Campbell thought that response to those questions was what made a man a Christian. He argued that all God asked of any man seeking salvation was belief of one fact and obedience of one command. A man’s faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, Savior from sin, and his submission to the command to be immersed, reflects both what that man thinks of Jesus and what he will do with him. It is this belief and obedience which brings all who have experienced them into relationship as brothers, regardless of the things that may subsequently arise to mar that union. Can it be possible that this same basis ought to remain the criterion of brotherhood and unity for all of us, and not lesser things such as our positions on restructure, instrumental music, the millennium, etc.?

If this seems an oversimplification, is it possible that Satan has cunningly led us, like the Corinthians, away from “the simplicity that is in Christ?” The exalted Christ was message enough for the apostles, unschooled as they were in all such arguments and issues which we count so important. Everywhere they went, they preached Jesus, not steps, plans, right churches or wrong churches. Their converts were not drawn to doctrines, churches, or men—but to Christ. It is true that some of those converts occasionally tended, like their 20th century counterparts, to follow men and legalistic codes, but Paul reproved such tendencies, as through his word he yet does today.

Our departure from the single focus of Christ and our controversy over “issues” have made us largely irrelevant to the world around us. Our controversial provincialism has insulated us from the vital concerns of a world that is looking for answers to its problems. A younger generation is rejecting the Christian religion, not because it has no answers for them, but because they have identified Christianity with fossilated denominationalism, with complacent, middle class materialism, with meaningless ritual and architectural snobbery. And it will do us no good to point to high-church cathedrals and the cold formalism of other groups, because candor requires the recognition that the Church of Christ, and the Christian Church, in their own status-conscious way, are equally guilty. The same generation which rejects Christian institutionalism for its irrelevance on the one hand, and its own culpability on the other in the problems of hunger, war, race, crime, and technology, are not rejecting Christ, for they have never seen him or really heard his message. They know just enough about him to know that he would not fit into the pattern of staid and complacent institutionalism which passes for Christianity. So until he appears to them in a more realistic setting, they’ll have none of it.

It seems likely that the road to harmony for all groups of the Restoration movement and for other communions is the same course which must be taken if the church is to reestablish her vitality and relevance to current world conditions. This course involves a refocus of energy, a reevaluation of priorities, which will again “draw all men” unto Christ by lifting him up. This will mean relegation to the background many things that now occupy a great deal of prominence. Those of us who oppose classes and women teachers will have to recognize that these points are but peripheral to the church’s mission. Those who oppose instrumental music will have to learn that God’s grace is not so easily invalidated as to be cut off by organ chords. Those who seek restructure will need to see that the achievement of a more visible denominationalism may merely add to those factors which already tend to obscure the Christ-focus. All of us must cease to major in those distinctives which separate us and come to a mutual emphasis on Christ and those fundamentals of the gospel which lead men into Christ. Those things which made us all one in Christ are the things which ought to be our mutual platform of operation. Such a course would not automatically resolve our differences, but it would go a long way toward making them less significant. It would give us all a better perspective from which to reevaluate our distinctions and, in many cases, I believe, allow us to see how much partisan bias has magnified these differences out of proportion to their real importance. The really important issues which remained could be studied in a far more wholesome atmosphere—the spiritual atmosphere of brotherly love rather than in the carn(iv)al air of the debates of the past.

Thomas Langford is on research project with Office of Education in Washington. This is first of series on “What I Believe” from men of various wings of discipledom. Prof. Langford is of non-class Churches of Christ.