“Declaration and Address”: Mandate for Renewal . . .

THE ANATOMY OF A SLOGAN

Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.—Thomas Campbell

In our first installment of this series on the Declaration and Address we described the background leading up to the creation of the most important document to emerge from the Restoration Movement.

We learned that the essay was prepared in the summer of 1809 in the home of a farmer named Welch, only two years after Thomas Campbell arrived in this country from Ireland. We observed that Mr. Campbell’s family, including son Alexander, followed him to America, arriving at about the time the Declaration and Address was sent to the printer. We noticed that Alexander Campbell read the essay while it was yet in proof-sheets and was asking his father questions about its implications before it was ever published.

Strangely enough, the most famous slogan of the Restoration Movement, the one we now propose to analyze, did not appear in the Movement’s most famous document. The Declaration and Address nowhere says “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” It was rather the slogan that produced the document. Mr. Campbell first found the rule—the guideline that would bring the people back to the Bible—and once this was set forth he proceeded to articulate the principles implied in the slogan, which extended into an essay some 90 pages in length.

The slogan was born amidst those meetings held in the home of Abraham Altars, near Washington, Pa., that led to the formation of the Christian Association of Washington. When it appeared that a movement for a return to the ancient order was in the making, Mr. Campbell presented to his followers what he called “the great principle” that should guide them in their efforts. It was to a hushed and eager audience, common folk who were disenchanted with sectarianism, that Thomas Campbell first spoke the slogan, that came to be acclaimed by millions.

“Where the Scriptures speak, we speak,” he said to them, “and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”

It was then and always has been a catchy, persuasive motto, one that lends itself to ready acceptance and without question. Insofar as we can determine it was original with Mr. Campbell. References to it may be found among religious writers generally. One such source is A Book About the Bible, where the slogan appears among statements generally supposed to come from the Bible. The author explains that it is not from the Bible, but a statement originating with Thomas Campbell.

The slogan was inspired by Campbell’s conviction that nothing but a return to the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice would solve the divisive state of religion. He and his friends formed the Christian Association of Washington in an effort to put an end to partyism. To do this the creeds of men, which were but instruments of division, had to give way to the authority of the Scriptures. The churches were divided over opinions, things about which the Bible was silent, rather than over what the Scriptures actually taught. The silence of the Scriptures thus came to be important in Campbell’s thinking.

It was indeed a vital discovery. If men are divided over opinions, matters not even mentioned in the Bible, then the silence of the Scriptures demands sober consideration. If men will speak only as the Bible speaks, and be silent when it is silent, what a difference that will make in uniting that which is divided. And thus a slogan was born.

The slogan impressed Campbell’s followers as simple and concise. It stood in bold contrast to the complexities of the creedalism that had so long held them captive. They were receptive to it but by no means gullible. In the audience was a Mr. Andrew Munro, a postmaster, who was quick to see the implications of the slogan. What he had to say not only got the slogan off to a stormy beginning, but it anticipated a difficulty “the great principle” was to have from that point on.

“Mr. Campbell,” he said, “if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.”

“Of course,” replied Mr. Campbell, “if infant baptism be not found in Scripture, we can have nothing to do with it.”

The history that follows reveals that Thomas Campbell was slow to accept this, for three years passed before he followed his son Alexander in submitting to immersion and thereby, by implication, rejecting infant baptism. For a long while he supported the view that a case can be made for infant baptism, despite Scriptural silence, and that one should at least show forbearance toward the practice of it. In this regard Mr. Campbell is himself a good illustration of how difficult it. is to make his slogan work. If he could continue to see infant baptism in a Bible that is silent on the subject, how could he expect others to reach agreement as to when the Bible is silent and when it is not?

The enunciation of the slogan was a turning point in the new Movement. When Mr. Munro saw in it an end to infant baptism if it were faithfully followed, another brother named Thomas Acheson protested, insisting that a rejection of infant baptism was a denial of the Lord’s words when He said, “Suffer little children to come unto me.” The anticipation of giving up infant baptism moved him to great weeping. As he repaired to a side room to shed his tears, one James Foster, who was later to join the Campbells in being immersed, said to him, “Mr. Acheson, I would remark that in the portion of Scripture you have quoted there is no reference whatever to infant baptism.”

Mr. Campbell continued to insist that the rule was so significant that it should be written in letters of gold Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” But the implications were so severe that his followers began to drop out of rank one by one, leaving only those whose break with their sectarian past was definite or who had already decided that infant baptism was unwarranted. It was some of these that continued to press Mr. Campbell to accept the demands of his own principle and give up infant baptism.

One day while riding along with Mr. Campbell, the same James Foster said to him pointedly, “How could you, in the absence of any authority in the Word of God, baptize a child in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?” Mr. Campbell, irritated and with face colored, answered in offended tone, “Sir, you are the most intractable person I ever met.”

But Mr. Campbell had his nucleus for a Movement that was to dedicate itself to the cause of Christian unity, and it is to the credit of these pioneers that they were able to keep the work alive in the face of disagreements. One can speculate at this point as to whether they should not have remained with their churches and worked for unity from within. It may have been a mistake for them ever to have formed the Christian Association of Washington, destined as it was to become another denomination even when it was not intended.

Such Monday morning quarter-backing overlooks the intensity of partyism of the western frontier. The people wanted to break away from the sectarianism imported from Europe. It was a new day and they wanted to be a new people. The route the Campbells took may well have been the only way. But history reveals that they were naive in supposing that they could leave their churches, organize an association as an instrument for unity among the churches, without at the same time starting another church. The innocuous Christian Association of Washington has indeed led to many parties, representing as they now do the various segments within Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ. And we might add that this unfortunate consequence has been due in part to the impossible task of making Mr. Campbell’s slogan work. The Movement abhorred and become a spectacle of division rather than a symbol of unity. It fell apart at the seams in its passion to find agreement as to when the Scriptures speak and when they are silent.

The problem is that while the scriptures are silent to one man in regard to some idea or practice they are quite vocal to another. The Bible is both silent and audible about Sunday Schools or instrumental music, cooperative enterprises or missionary societies, depending on whom you choose to listen to. One man reads the scriptures and finds them silent as a tomb in reference to those things foreign to his own practice, while another finds them speaking quite clearly on matters within his own doctrine.

One may be loyal to “Where the scriptures speak, we speak . . .” but he finds it speaking where another man finds it silent. And one may be true to the idea of being silent where the scriptures are silent, but he finds silence where another man finds speaking.

This is not necessarily the fault of either the Bible or people. Communication has always been a serious problem. Especially is this true in a situation made up of young and old, the experienced and the inexperienced, the educated and the uneducated. Some need milk while others need meat. We are all at different points on the scale of maturation. Sometimes we cannot hear the scriptures speak because of our lack of spiritual wisdom, which may come later in life. All of us have had the experience of “hearing” what a verse of scripture says to us after years of ignorance of its real meaning.

Too, the Bible is oftentimes difficult to interpret and many passages are subject to more than one interpretation. There is plainly room for different ideas as to what the Bible is really saying to us. Two men can differ without either of them being perverse. Truth is seldom, if ever, pure and simple. It can be very complex and hard to come by, and even then it is often mixed with obscurity.

Take subjects regarding which the Bible clearly has something to say. Foot-washing is a good illustration, for it appears in the scriptures as both a command and an example. Yet most of us find the Bible silent in this matter and so our practice is silent. We have our explanations, of course, but we must be forbearing with those who distinctly hear the Bible speak of foot-washing where we find it silent.

Some of our people cannot conscientiously cast a vote for the President, others cannot join the Masons or the Elks, some cannot enter the military, and others cannot attend dances or movies. And on all these the scriptures speak quite clearly to these sincere hearts, if not explicitly then implicitly.

Many of us will find ourselves sensitive to things that are most certainly not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Gambling, social drinking, drag racing, euthanasia (mercy killing), birth control, the use of narcotics, to mention but a few. It is probable that God’s word speaks to us in some way regarding such problems, and so we make our decisions in regard to them. We have to admit that where the scriptures speak to one man they are silent to another. One physician lies to his patient when he thinks it will harm him to know the truth; another physician always tells the truth, leaving the consequences to God. Both may be sincere Christians and both base their decision upon what God says to them in His word.

It will be argued, as Thomas Campbell himself did, that all such things mentioned here are in the area of opinion. And opinions are outside the realm of scriptural authority. The Bible is clear about what really matters, and these are matters of faith, to be distinguished from matters of opinion.

This is a neat way to satisfy one’s traditions, but it is hardly that simple. People differ on “what is really important,” and what one man considers to be a matter of opinion is to another man a matter of faith. The old bromide of “just take what the Bible says” is as ineffective as it is puerile. What does the Bible say? is quite obviously the question, for what is so very clear to one man is wholly obscure to the next.

All this means that we are badly in need of analyzing what we mean by the authority of the scriptures. We cannot possibly mean that one man’s interpretation of the scriptures is the authority for others. And few of us would look to a pope, a council, or a synod to establish biblical authority for us. Nor would all of us be willing to turn the matter over to the Firm Foundation or the Restoration Review or even to the Singapore Newsletter.

With the Constitution of the United States this problem is solved for us. We may differ over what the Constitution means and even confront each other in court. If I lose I can appeal to a higher court. But at last there is the Supreme Court that stands as final authority as to what the Constitution says.

Who is to serve as the Supreme Court in the Church of Christ? How is the decision about tongue-speaking to be resolved? Or pre-millennialism? Or Herald of Truth?

There can be only one answer to this. Each man’s conscience is his own Supreme Court. Strictly speaking, it is not the scriptures that are the authority; it is rather our own conscience based upon the scriptures. Romans 14 makes this clear. One man who loves God and studies the scriptures abstains from meats, while another who loves God and studies the scriptures eats meat. Both are right because both are directed by a pure conscience in their efforts to please God. Paul gives us an important truth in saying, “It is before his own master that he stands or falls.” God knows the heart and He is the respecter of a man’s scruples, provided they are a matter of conscience. If one is insincere, God knows, and we do not have to judge him.

What then are we to make of Campbell’s great slogan? To be sure we cannot falsify its application by suggesting that we are indeed silent where the Bible is silent and speak only where it speaks. We most certainly do speak where the Bible is silent and we are silent where it speaks. So it is with all our segments and with all religious bodies everywhere.

Yet there is validity to the spirit of the slogan even when a literal application is impossible. Suppose we paraphrase it to read this way:

Where the scriptures speak to my conscience, I will endeavor to make a loving response,’ where the scriptures are silent and I do not hear the voice of God, I will not be presumptuous and take God’s will into my own hands.

Fellowship is possible among all God’s people who have that attitude. This is to recognize that God deals differently with men, even as He speaks to them through the Bible. It also puts error in proper perspective. If error is a matter of pride or a perverted conscience, it is a very serious matter indeed, However, if one is honestly mistaken about a matter, his relationship with the Lord remains secure (and it should with us) so long as he is sincerely endeavoring to please God, for that is what pleases God.

We conclude, therefore, that Thomas Campbell’s slogan has meaning when applied to our own personal search for the eternal verities, but that it is of no value as a rule whereby we endeavor to conform others to our own interpretation of the scriptures. There will, therefore, be times when we will encourage a brother to go on and speak what he believes the scriptures say to him, while we will feel obligated to be silent on the matter. He, on the other hand, is to be silent while others speak their convictions.

The gift of love, bequeathed by the Holy Spirit, is the means whereby this can be possible in our fractured and divided brotherhood.—the Editor

God is the poet of the world, with tender patience leading it by his vision of truth, beauty, and goodness.—Alfred North Whitehead