EXCHANGE WITH READERS

 

The Meyers Piece”

Resurrection Morning: What Happened?” left me cold. I’m not very smart. And there are many things I can’t explain. I’m not a Bible worshiper. But it seems to me that the position Robert has taken leaves us with logical doubts about a literal resurrection.—Texas

I want to particularly compliment you for the thought-provoking essay by Robert Meyers. I suppose that most C of C people who read the article will simply shrug off the implications that arise from such an article without giving any serious thought to the questions that need answering. The anomalies contained in the synoptic writings on the resurrection are but one example of many such problems.—Alabama

I appreciated brother Meyers’ article.—Illinois

Cancel my subscription!—Missouri.

Prof. Meyers said the following in his essay: “What then are we left with? It seems to me that the one tremendously significant thing on which all four writers agree is this: Jesus arose”.—Ed.

Other Reactions

I appreciate the way Restoration Review stimulates my thinking, whether I agree or not.—Iowa

In the November issue you speak of unity, and how the churches of Christ as a whole are not looking for unity in the religious world. I do not feel from reading your publication that you desire unity even among congregations of the body of Christ, unless they are willing to do as you say and do as you will . . . I have, no desire to receive it. My wife and I have high standards for the reading matter that comes into our home and your publication does not meet these standards.—Nebraska

We are convinced that there are among us that are weary of our ways, and one purpose of this journal is to encourage such ones to remain with the Church of Christ and work peacefully for the unity that can be ours in Christ. If this does not make for a reasonably constructive publication, we can only say that we are sorry.—Ed.

Leroy, I long ago got over being impressed with the “little learning” we human beings obtain in this life. Rather, my dear Leroy, it is the Divine Revelation from God, through His Word, as made alive by the Holy Spirit, that makes the difference.—Dallas

I frequently get such admonitions, and I presume them to be always in order, but is there anything in what I write that suggests that I place education or “the wisdom of this world” above the Word or the influence of the Spirit?—Ed.

From Non-Class Segment

I agree with your overall appeal. The control of the Holy Spirit in our lives shows itself most importantly in “love, joy, peace.” It is our affair to try to give Christ our lives so that He through His Spirit can produce that fruit.—Kansas

A broadside approach (to fellowship) will bring open rupture and division, and the Old Guard will bring it without a qualm of conscience. We tend to be in a hurry sometimes. There must be some way to enjoy a fellowship of the Spirit apart from the formal services and corporate structures, or else open division would be the only course. You and Carl Ketcherside have presented something similar to what has been on my mind for a time. Would this fellowship be somewhat eclective?.. We have talked about starting a private meeting in this area which would bridge quite a few lines.—state of residence withheld.

Changes are taking place throughout discipledom, including the various groups of non-class Churches of Christ, from which these two responses come. The letter from which the first paragraph was lifted made reference to better relationship between class and non-class folk. They do not now think so much in terms of stealing sheep from each other!

The second paragraph comes from an editor among these people, so when he refers to “the Old Guard” it is a different power structure from the one I refer to when I use the term. I am sure he knows whereof he speaks when he says the Old Guard had rather wreck the church than to unite with those they have so long opposed.

His reference to the possibility of private meetings and a fellowship apart from “formal services and corporate structures”, confirms what we are saying about the necessity of an underground. Either such ones must leave the Church of Christ and start over, which only leads to still another faction, or they must go underground, where they can both enjoy the fellowship for which they yearn and peaceably work for oneness of all believers. In asking whether such a fellowship would be eclective, I think he’s asking if it would be too diverse. Fellowship is between fellows who are in Christ together. They may be as different in their thinking as are brothers in a family, but still they are one in Christ. Unity in diversity is the only kind of unity there can be. Anything else would be mere conformity, which stifles the individuality of the Christian.—Ed.