Alexander Campbell’s “Synopsis of Reform” . . .

THE RESTORATION OF A PURE SPEECH

The restoration of a pure speech, or the calling of Bible things by Bible names.

In these words Alexander Campbell made his first point in presenting what he called “Synopsis of Reformation Principles and Objects.” It was the first of five principles “for the healing of divisions among Christians and the better understanding of the Christian institution.”

He insisted again and again in his writings that nothing is more essential to the unity of God’s people than purity of speech. So long as the earth was of one speech the human family was united, he observed, and if they had been of a pure speech, as well as one speech, they would not have been separated. In dispersing them to the ends of the earth, God first divided their language.

Campbell was impressed with the force of Zeph 3:9: “Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that hey may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.” He took this to mean that purity of speech is a prerequisite to serving the Lord in oneness.

He was disturbed by the unscriptural language “coined in the mint of speculative theology,” contending that the fiercest disputes about religion are about what the Bible does not say rather than about what it does say. He could not see that anyone’s name would be omitted from the Book of Life for his failure to understand or respond to the canons and creeds of theological opinion. They make men no better, but they do contribute to religious division and confusion.

He thus calls for an adoption of “the vocabulary of Heaven” and a returning of the borrowed nomenclature of the schools to their rightful owners. We must distinguish between the testimony of God and man’s reasonings and philosophy upon it. The Bible that speaks of there being “One Lord, one faith, one immersion, one God and Father of all,” says nothing about there being one opinion. While he finds a place for opinion in Christian experience, opinion must never be made a test of communion.

In this connection he makes an important observation. If unity of opinion were desirable, he points out, it could be attained only by allowing the greatest liberty of opinion. The more people insist upon everyone believing alike the less agreement there will be. The more demand there is for conformity the more division there will be. So, even if it be conformity that we desire, the best way of achieving it is to allow freedom of opinion. It is in an atmosphere of openness that people are more likely to come to see things alike.

We disciples of the 1960’s have not measured up to the wisdom of Campbell’s psychology of over a century ago. We strive to bring each other into subjection, conforming the dissidents to our own party’s interpretation by debating them, withdrawing from them, calling them names, writing them up, and otherwise browbeating them. This has only created more parties. The character of the human mind is such, Campbell realized, that it can be nurtured to believe in a given way only by being left free. Coercion may create a totalitarian community, but never unity of opinion.

Campbell also observed that in most cases of exclusion it is the most desirable and the most intelligent that are rejected as heretics. While heresy is always the charge, it is often a case of one knowing more about the Bible than his accusers. He says, “In most instances the greatest error of which a brother can be guilty, is to study the Bible more than his companions or, at least, to surpass them in his knowledge of the mystery of Christ.”

This tragic fact has changed little since Campbell’s time. The heresy hunt now going on at our Christian colleges bears witness to this, along with the increasing instances of dismissal of some of the best minds on the faculties. It is still a dangerous thing among us to have a vision of excellence, to rise above mediocrity, and to attain intellectual grace.

But to return to Campbell’s plea for purity of speech, reference should be made to his list of impurities of religious vocabulary. Some on the list are: the Holy Trinity, original sin, total depravity, effectual calling, free grace, imputed righteousness, justifying and saving faith, historic and temporary faith, visible and invisible church, sacraments.

We do not hear much of most of these, but Campbell saw them as impediments to an understanding of the Bible in his own time. Today we should compose our own list of impurities or “the vocabulary of Ashdod” as they might be called. We may be tempted to pick on the “sectarians” in making out our list, but if we are honest in the matter we will find that any list we prepare on others applies embarrassingly to ourselves as well. And since this is a study in the thought of our Movement it is proper that we give attention to what has happened to us in reference to vocabulary. To what degree are we ourselves in need of a restoration of pure speech?

We shall confine ourselves to some of the language we use in reference to the church.

The Term “Church”

And this term itself may have such impurities as to blind our vision of many vital truths. It now has an institutional connotation. We hardly see the church as a community or family. ‘’The congregation (church) in thy house,” a phrase that occurs at least three times in the scriptures, suggests a simplicity that is almost totally absent in our institutional concept of the church. In “the underground church” there are signs of renewal of the house church.

Most of us are aware that church is not a translation of the Greek “ekklesia” at all, but a bastard term introduced by the Anglican fathers who gave us the King James Version, mainly for the purpose of appeasing the ecclesiastical prejudices of their king. Few translators since that time have had the courage to dispense with a term that has become so embedded in religious culture. But the Jewish translator Hugh Schonfield is one. Throughout his The Authentic New Testament he renders “ekklesia” as community. He renders Mt. 16:18 as “So I tell you, since you are Peter, upon that rock I will found my Community, and the gates of hell shall nor prevail against it.” The Corinthian letters begin with: “To the community of God at Corinth,” while Rom. 16:16 reads: “All the Christian communities send their regards.” Such a rendition would really work havoc with our signs, wouldn’t it?

Alexander Campbell was himself aware of the inappropriateness of the term church, and he omitted it from his Living Oracles, a translation based on the labors of the eminent George Campbell, James MacKnight, and Philip Doddridge. Throughout the New Covenant scriptures they used the term congregation. Acts 20:28 thus reads: “Therefore, take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has constituted you overseers; to feed the congregation of the Lord, which he has redeemed with his own blood.”

We have ample grounds, therefore, for restoring such terms as community and congregation to our vocabulary, while relegating the term church to the ecclesiastical dumping ground where it belongs.

Doing so would enhance our concept of brotherhood. We are inclined to treat “a member of the church,”which is not a scriptural concept, with a coolness not usually characteristic of the relationship between brothers and sisters. It is easier to “withdraw fellowship,” another unscriptural term, from a member of the church than from a brother in the family.

The Anglican fathers used church, taken from an old English-German term, because it was already in their time an institutional concept, and the concept has become solidified through the centuries. When people think of the Church they almost certainly have ideas not intended by the Christ when he spoke of building his community. The ensuing centuries have brought us all sorts of ecclesiastical structures, organizations, doctrines, and vested interests. All of these seem inappropriate in view of terms like community, family, congregation.

We are thus deluged with loads of Ashdod. We have church edifices, church music, church architecture, church property, along with “going to church,” and “church membership.” There is even the fabled church mouse. Then comes the church staff, with its minister, associate minister, minister of music, and secretary, to name a few. All this makes for bigness. “The congregation in thy house” is thus something of a freak in our time. Even the small congregation hardly rates these days.

Bigness, which goes with churchmanship, is a Pandora’s box. It creates an atmosphere that actually makes the devotional disciplines difficult. The children in the family hardly know each other. Some are members of the same congregation for years without ever knowing it. It encourages an impersonal religion, for only a few know what is going on, indicated by the use of “they” in describing what may or may not happen. Bigness not only encourages clericalism and clerical control, but it makes a mutual ministry virtually impossible. Its chief concerns are its edifice, budget, staff, educated clergy, denominational projects, attendance. Spontaneity is a gift of freedom, a gift hardly known in the big, institutional church. It would be inappropriate for a brother “who has a word of exhortation” or “who has a hymn” to express himself in our congregations today. He would be infringing upon clerical prerogatives. The sacred desk is reserved for him whose right it is by contract, who would himself be infringing upon a fellow professional, once he goes elsewhere, should he have the urge to speak once more in the pulpit now claimed by another.

All this and more is associated with Church, and we are now inclined to capitalize the c. It is the establishment. It once had the power of life and death over men. Even now it has power over their livelihood, and it can crush any man who looks to it for sustenance. It still holds the threat of hell over men’s souls. But among its greatest evils is its immorality, for it is the proudest and most selfish of all institutions. It controls great riches and property, with no taxes to pay, and does less for the poor than state welfare agencies.

It is appropriate to add that if we succeed in recovering such terms as community, assembly, and congregation we will have to sacrifice a term that has become all too precious, our exclusive name THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. And if we succeed in recovering the spirit and beauty of the family of God to our congregational life, we will be the better off for it. To be sure, the institutional church must go.

Other Impurities

There are other terms related to the life of God’s community that are deterrents to clarity. We shall mention some of these only briefly.

Communion. The same Greek term that is rendered communion is also translated as fellowship, distribution and communication. Communion is therefore many things, related as it is to the whole life of the family. There is no such things as “the Communion” in the scriptures, and to refer to the Lord’s Supper in this way is improper. It is of course a communion, but not the communion.

Ministry. We are as bad as the next denomination in speaking of “entering the ministry” and in distinguishing between ministers and other saints. Our ministers are those who “preach” from behind the sacred desk. But the scriptural view of ministry is that of service. The same word from which we get minister we get also deacon, both terms referring to those who serve. Letterheads listing Minister, Elders, Deacons (and practices that conform to this) therefore miss the mark. One enters the service or ministry of Christ when he enters Christ.

Sanctuary. We are not guilty here as some, but even among us there is talk of a room in a building as “the sanctuary.” It would be more scriptural to refer to those who sing and pray in that room as sanctuaries, for it is in them that God makes his abode, not in any room or building. It is the believer that is a sanctuary of God, for in him God’s spirit dwells. We should not hesitate to think of ourselves as saints, which is to say that God is in us as his holy vessels. In Christianity it is only the human heart that is holy. There are no other sanctuaries. There are no holy days, places or things.

Fellowship. This terms is terribly abused, qualifying as it does for anyone’s list of impure speech. Fellowship is a relationship people enter into by virtue of being in Christ together. It is a sharing of the common life. It is a partnership in Christ, shared by all believers. Fellowship is not related to things like organs, missionary societies and Sunday School literature. To talk of “fellowshiping instrumental music” is thus confusing. Even to speak of “fellowshiping the Christian Church” also misses the point, for fellowship is between fellows, believers, and not with institutions. To use the term as a verb, as if it were some act of ours, is foreign to the scriptures. One may as well talk about “sonshiping” with a brother or “companionshiping” with his wife. The ship in the word points to a state or relationship shared together. Brothers in a family share sonship by reason of having the same father. Couples share companionship because of the bond of marriage. Christians are in the fellowship because they are in Christ together. It is therefore unscriptural to talk of “fellowshiping” anything. God calls us into his fellowship by the gospel. We have no control over the relationship, no more than a man can control who shares “sonship” with him. If his Mother presents him with a new brother, there isn’t much he can do about it. It thus follows that every child of God is our brother, and he is in the fellowship because of that. Part of the problem is that we confuse fellowship with approval. While one may disapprove of missionary societies, he is nonetheless in the fellowship with those brethren who adhere to that method of preaching the gospel.

Gospel. So common a term as the gospel also makes our list of impure language, for there is good evidence for concluding that as a people we do not know what the gospel is. We suppose that if a church has a piano it is “perverting the gospel,” or that one does not minister the gospel if he is wrong on some points of doctrine. We fail to see that the gospel was preached in its fulness and was gloriously obeyed long before most of the New Testament scriptures were written. We must therefore distinguish between the gospel of Christ, which brings men to Christ, and the apostles’ doctrine, which schools them in Christian discipline.

It is noteworthy that Campbell introduced this principle of pure speech “for the healing of divisions among Christians and the better understanding of the Christian institution.” Surely understanding and the healing of divisions are so related. A return to pure speech will mean a better understanding of Christianity. The recovery of proper vocabulary will help us in the renewal of fellowship and brotherhood.—the Editor.