A Review of “Churches of Christ in America” in
        The Religious Situation 1969 . . .

A NEW DRUM BEAT

Those of us in Churches of Christ will be interested in a recently published essay entitled “Churches of Christ in America” by Edwin S. Gaustad, which is part of a large volume (1100 pages) called The Religious Situation: 1969, published by Beacon Press in Boston. It is the second in a series of annual volumes designed to describe the religious situation throughout the world.

Elsewhere in this issue we explain how our readers can make an easy purchase of these volumes, but inasmuch as most will not be inclined to spend 15.00 for the volume in question, we thought it proper to review this particular essay about us. It provides us with something very rare: a critical analysis of our place in the religious world by a responsible scholar from the outside. Heretofore no one has paid us any mind when viewing the religious scene. Now we are alongside Maoism and Religion in China Today, The Pentecostal Conquest of Chile, The Underground Church, and the Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI. Since it is an evaluation that will no doubt be read extensively and with great interest, it would be inappropriate for us not to know about it.

Dr. Edwin S. Gaustad is professor of history at the University of California at Riverside. Recently he has been on leave working on a special project on Religion Social Studies curricula for public secondary schools at Florida State University. Last year he published Religious Issues in American History. We are unaware of any connection on his part with Churches of Christ save that of a research scholar interested in American religion.

The study begins by pointing to the significance of the idea of restoration, which Gaustad refers to as “this Janus vision” (Janus being the Roman god of beginnings), and which swept across the American frontier. He sees the movement led by Campbell, Scott, and Stone as “the strongest member of the Protestant American restoration family,” a recognition that the Janus vision neither began nor ended with us. He dates our beginning with Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address in 1809, and he shows how the movement grew to more than a million members during its first century, building colleges and societies along the way, and joining the Federal Council of Churches in 1908, the National Council in 1950, and participating in the Consultation on Church Union during the 1960’s. He explains, however, that there were those in the movement that did not go along with the modernistic innovations, and that from the beginning of the present century “the churches of Christ” knew themselves to be of another mind, of a different fellowship.” And he invariably uses the small “c”as painstakingly as if he were a staff writer for the Gospel Advocate!

After grappling with the impossible problem of church statistics, including our own awkward efforts to count our own noses, Gaustad estimates that we have from 12,000 to 14,000 congregations with an average membership of from 100 to 150, with a total membership of something less than two million. Though he sees us as a national movement, he takes notice of the fact that in 1906 we had 2,649 churches, with half of them in Texas and Tennessee. A decade later the number of churches had doubled, with half of them still limited to only four states (Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma). He sees us as largely a border state church, with California and the West Coast being an exception in the last decade of growth.

He sees our mission work abroad hampered by a lack of national supervision and support, but is impressed nonetheless that we have strength in many areas: 70 congregations in Japan, 100 in India, 32 in Australia and 44 in Italy. He concludes that our mission program is of sufficient force to have a broadening influence on the churches at home.

There is this strange comparison: “Like ancient Mithraism, the churches of Christ appear where American armies are placed, thus there are congregations in such unlikely places as the Azores, Greenland, Afghanistan, and Guam.” He could have just as well mentioned that Mithraism was for men only, and had a more valid reference, for we have so subjected the woman’s role as to have what is tantamount to a man’s church.

Dr. Gaustad is, however, more interested in what is happening to us qualitatively than in our history and numerical growth. He asks a lively question: “Is there any sense in which this scattered, fractured, and fractious group is where the action is? To a surprising extent, the answer to that question is ‘yes’.”

When scholars are writing critical essays, they are not trying to say nice things particularly, but I consider this a compliment to our people, about the nicest thing that could be said of an expanding church. We are where the action is, or at least we are moving in this direction.

This he says because we seem willing to shed “the old concentration on the minutiae, the anise and cumin of the law.” Our exclusivism and Pharisaism still has its defenders, but they no longer go unchallenged. He sees the journals among us as providing clues regarding shifting views. He cites four areas in which we are making significant changes, changes that move us from the old toward the new.

1. A disenchantment with the hoary cliches, especially those related to instrumental music.

Here he quotes Carl Ketcherside in Mission Messenger as one who wishes to recapture “that spirit of brotherly love which transcends divergent views about the instrument,” and he tells of Ketcherside’s desire to transfer this aged issue from the box labeled “Differences Which Divide” to the box named “Differences Which Do Not Divide.”

2. The minutiae are not regarded with the same seriousness as before.

While he grants that we are still fussy about things like a little “c” for church and a little “b” for brother, he sees us as moving toward larger concerns. Here he quotes Robert Myers in Restoration Review as an instance of how we have begun to criticize ourselves: “ . . . the Church of Christ, having failed to develop a philosophy for handling differences of opinion, is fated to pass endlessly from one unnecessary tragedy to another.” Gaustad admits that a philosophy that can handle differences is still undeveloped, but he sees a pragmatic tolerance as more pervasive than before.

3. The sense of exclusiveness, the assurance of truth possessed in the round, the idea of being Christ’s true and only church no longer goes unchallenged.

He sees these as still moving to and fro across the land. We must concede that the professor in his research comes up with our number.

Almost proverbial has been the penchant of these Christians to be polemical in their dealing with all other Christians. They were right; all others were wrong. They understood the New Testament and obeyed it; others did neither. Arguments and answers and biblical texts were memorized, even by children, to meet every counter position, to parry every heterodox thrust. So armed with the sword of the spirit, it was easy to gut in their place all Methodists, Baptists, Disciples, Catholics, Christian Scientists, and, on occasion, even pagans.

But he is impressed with the attack against Pharisaism from within Church of Christ ranks, and here he quotes President Norvel Young of Pepperdine College, who asked only this year in the pages of the Gospel Advocate why we write about “a congregation of the church of Christ.” Says Young: “Why be redundant? Or are we really saying ‘churches of the church of Christ denomination: I hope not, but I am sure that many of our neighbors hear that whether we intend to say it or not.” Gaustad is further impressed with Young’s casual comment that the expression “church of Christ” does not even appear in the New Testament.

The “hottest blast” against our Pharisaism, however, comes from Prof. David Reagan in Restoration Review, according to Gaustad. He sees Reagan’s “Pharisaism in the Church of Christ” as “a new and useful Prayer of General Confession:’

. . . we of the Church of Christ have killed the spirit of New Testament Christianity! Yes, the sin of Pharisaism is on our hearts. . . We have been obsessed for over a century with a legalistic restoration of New Testament Christianity. . . we have been engulfed in a narrow concern for the restoration of outward forms and external appearances. We have devoted our energies to superficialities . . . we have been more guilty of Pharisaism than were the original Pharisees themselves. . . We have endlessly stressed the passing of the Old Law, but failed to realize that it was not simply replaced with a New Law.

Gaustad has his touches of humor, one of which follows this blast from Reagan: “Professor Reagan need only have added ‘. . . and there is no health in us’.”

This section on the passing of The Old is followed in Gaustad’s study by a consideration of the fresh currents of The New, and here too he lists four developments.

1. The powerful leaven of education is clearly responsible for much uneasy movement in the whole denominational loaf.

As a historian would, Gaustad observes that one of the curious anomalies of sectarian life in America is that groups disdaining an educated ministry go on to produce an educated laity. So with us. He thinks the gap we have between an emerging educated laity and the less educated clergy would be less aggravated if we had national leadership. He sees us as committed more and more to higher education.

The professor has done his homework. He knows that Bethany College was started by Campbell, but realizes it is not now a Church of Christ college. He names the four most influential: Lipscomb, ACC, Harding, and Pepperdine. And he knows we have no seminaries (though really we do, though by other names). And he knows what is going on in the colleges, e.g., he observes: “That influence is not all in one direction, to be sure, for but few of the rigid patterns of the past go unexamined by the collegiate youth.”

2. The higher level of publishing is as apparent as it is promising.

Here Mission magazine draws special praise as being both learned and nonparochial. Aware that the magazine is viewed by some as “definitely the mouthpiece for a far-out liberal movement in the church,” Gaustad is impressed with Mission’s editorial response to such attacks.

Having devoted ourselves so long to correcting the religious errors of others, we have come to intensely resist any notion that we might be wrong on something. . . We’re not intellectually perfect any more than we are morally perfect. We don’t make the latter boast; nor should we imply the former. The proper attitude is an openness to learn and receive truth regardless of its source. The ground of the Christian’s confidence is not that he knows, but that God knows him.

3. The higher quality of issues now receiving full debate among members of the churches of Christ.

The researchist acknowledges that those he is studying are skilled debaters, having talents that are often wasted on superficial issues. But now they are turning to larger forums, theological and sociological, intellectual and political. The concerns now deal with campus unrest, inner city, underdeveloped nations, Negro revolution, pacifism, and “the servant church”, subjects drawn from Mission magazine. Still others from 20th Century Christian caught Gaustad’s eye: The Christian in the City, Christianity and Science, Christ and Race Relations.

Says Gaustad: “If Texas and Tennessee—the proven strongholds—display editorial initiative of this calibre, can the total brotherhood be far behind?

Only one congregation is singled out in Gaustad’s analysis, and that is the Madison church near Nashville. But not for its size or for the awards it has won, but for its efforts toward integration. He quotes Ira North, the minister, in his reply to the complain that integration would disturb the church’s building program.

Our reply was that the Madison congregation started out some 34 years ago in an old garage. When it would rain on the Lord’s Day, the Bible school teachers would stand in water, as it ran through the old garage, to teach the Bible. If practicing what we preached meant going back to the old garage and losing our multimillion dollar facility, we were prepared to go back.

4. The churches of Christ are willing to look at their own foibles and failings—and smile.

The professor sees no indication that we are taking the work of God and the gospel of Christ any less seriously than ever, but we are learning to take ourselves less seriously. Here he points to the Restoration Review again and to the article about the imaginary bumper stickers. Don’t Dance—Park! Attend the Church of My Choice, and Fight Eggheadism—Start Your Neighborhood Christian College Today! are viewed as instances of being willing to laugh at our own foibles.

Gaustad is especially impressed with a piece appearing in Mission entitled “Pseudo Amos” in which a “non-prophet” pronounces woes on the sects, then comes closer home to cast fire on the Disciples. While Israel (Churches of Christ) enjoys hearing her neighbors castigated, the fire falls on her too, as it did in the case of the Amos of old. Gaustad reproduces these lines from Mission:

Thus says the Lord:

For three transgressions of the Disciples of Christ and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;

because they sing with flutes and lyres and organs and make strange noises unto the Lord.

So I will send a fire upon the prodigal sons of Campbell and it shall devour the strongholds of Bethany.

Thus says the Lord:

For three transgressions of the Churches of Christ and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;

because they sell the inner city for suburban sanctuaries and the ghetto for heated baptistries and soft lights;

they that trample the head of the indigents and immigrants and turn aside the way of the addicts and alcoholics.

Hear the word that the Lord has spoken against you, O Churches of Christ:

You only have I known of all the churches of the earth; therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities.

Woe to us who sit on padded pews and relax ourselves on theatre seats;

Who sing spiritual ditties without the sound of the harp and unlike David, do not invent for ourselves instruments of music;

Who drink Welch’s grape juice in individual cups and anoint ourselves with the finest of cosmetics;

But are not grieved over the ruin of our people!

Therefore, we shall now be the first to go into exile, and the revelry of those who are relaxed shall pass away.

Such references Gaustad sees as “evidences of a new drum beat heard within the marching ranks of the churches of Christ.” He concludes that we are “an energetic youngster among America’s ecclesiastical bodies. It has idealism and good health—along with some of the awkwardness of adolescence.” One may suppose from his concluding words that he likes us well enough and that he has hopes that we may someday be part of the answer.

Says he: “Puberty can be a painful, lonely time, but on its other side the creative possibilities of maturity beckon.”

So goes a reasonable and responsible piece of work on what surely must be one of America’s most interesting religious groups.

Dr. Gaustad could not, of course, touch all the bases in a mere 20-page treatment, but we must admit that some omissions surprised us, some so significant that he must not have known about them, as careful as he was in his research. Voices of Concern: Critical Essays in Church of Christism is not referred to at all, and yet it is unique in religious publication, being a compilation of essays by people willing to criticize their own church. Missing also is any reference to the Christian Chronicle, which in recent years has featured such dynamic reporting as could hardly be expected of a denominational newspaper.

Gaustad knew about Herald of Truth, but he must not have been impressed, and after all those millions spent on it! Nor did he adjudge our vast building programs as of any particular significance. The “anti” movement will no doubt feel left out, for there is not the slightest reference to any of them or any of their several papers. Abilene may be neglected as a center of influence, not getting the attention that we would give to it had we been writing the essay. Only Pepperdine among the colleges receives special mention, and that in reference to its efforts to integrate, and Norvel Young is the only president mentioned in the study.

There should have been some reference to our extensive efforts to heal our divisive wounds. Unity meetings have now been held across the country and the lines of communication are being reestablished. This is a significant fact in these days of ecumenical concerns.

As for the papers, the Gospel Advocate barely makes it, once in reference to a hymnal it advertised back in 1912 and once in quoting Norvel Young, while Carl Ketcherside and Mission Messenger are given extensive treatment. The Firm Foundation is not quoted even once, while Mission is drawn from more than once and at length, as is the 20th Century Christian. And we are pleased that the researchist found Restoration Review helpful in his study, quoting as he did from four of our writers.

Zebedee Bishop, a Negro minister in Detroit, and Ira North of Madison, Tenn., are the only ministers referred to. The Negro minister is mentioned in reference to his plea that restoration has something to do with restoring a genuine sense of community among all men.

We refer to some of these details as an indication of what is going on among us and what is being said that appears to be of some importance by one who is responsibly looking at us from without.

Gaustad’s report is both interesting and informative. It give us a place on the religious spectrum. We commend him for doing his work well, and we thank him for helping us to see ourselves better, the good along with the not so good. But above all we agree with his conclusion that there is a new drum beat within the marching ranks of the Churches of Christ.

The old drum beat is muffled and dying. Let all of us who have hope for a free and responsible brotherhood declare to all, those within and without, that the new drum beat will swell into a crescendo that will bear us on to victory.—the Editor

The most skillful flattery is to let a person talk on, and be a listener.—Joseph Addison