THE BURNING OF WITCHES
by DON REECE

This article is in reference to the Unity Forum at the Church of Christ in West Islip, New York, which was attended by members of the Restoration Movement of various views and practices, and which was reported in the July 14, 1969 issue of the Christian Chronicle; and it is in response to an article entitled Fraternizing in the Forum, and published in a prominent brotherhood publication. It is also in response to some things which were more implied than said in a Texas publication, and to the attacks which have recently been made on Campus Evangelism and on the Christian Chronicle in various publications.

Like the brother who wrote the first named article, I, too, am disturbed about some of the things which some are endorsing. And like him, I am of the conviction that some of the things which were said in the West Islip Unity Forum are, to say the least, untenable. But, disturbed as I am about these things, I am more disturbed about the remedy which he suggests—that all of our brethren who hold views at variance with those that are generally accepted by the brotherhood, or who extend the bounds of their fellowship wider than do most brethren, ought to be “soberly repudiated” and disfellowshipped.

This suggestion, if adopted, would strike at the very heart of one of the most cardinal principles which was taught by the men who pioneered the Restoration Movement and upon which it was originally launched, namely the principle of the right of free inquiry and of private judgment. This principle was expressed by Brother Elias Smith in these words: “The Holy Scriptures are the only sure, authentic and infallible rule of faith and practice; the name Christian is the only proper one for the believer; in all essentials the scriptures are plain to be understood; every Christian is free to examine the Scriptures for himself and to impartially judge of the sense and meaning of the same; every Christian has a right to publish and vindicate what he believes is contained in the Scriptures, and to serve God according to his own conscience.” (See North Atlantic Christian, April/May 1962, page 122.) On the same point, Brother Thomas Campbell says in The Declaration and Address “That . . . nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles . . .” and “That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they nor formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God.”

I would suggest to our brother that, if the brotherhood consensus as to what the Bible teaches on a given point or as to who can be fellowshipped is to be taken as a norm from which no Christian can dissent, then we have gone the full cycle and are right back where the Presbyterians were in the days of Thomas Campbell.

We say to people; “We bind on you nothing but the New Testament.” If what we really mean is “We bind on you nothing but the New Testament, but we reserve the right to determine for you what it teaches on any point of dispute, and woe be unto you if your own study of it should lead you to differ from out determination!” then would it not be more honest to say that, and perhaps to call an assembly of all the faithful brethren (if anyone knows who the faithful brethren are!) and to decide what the true faith is down to the finest points, to write it out point by point and number it article by article, and to hand each incoming member a copy of it.

Our brother says, “I, for one, would like it clearly stated and widely known that those who were there (at West Islip, N.Y.) did not represent me or the mainstream of the brotherhood of the churches of Christ.” Well, I am one of these mainstream Church of Christ brethren, and I would like it equally clearly stated and equally widely known that he did not speak for me when he proposed that these brethren be “soberly repudiated.” As I read such articles and listen to the charges and countercharges that are being made in the church today, I thank God more and more for two things—first, that he reserved the business of adding to the church to himself (Acts 2:38) and did not entrust it to any of us; and second, that no matter who we may regard as being in the church (or out of it), no matter who we may recognize as a Christian (or refuse to recognize), and no matter who we may fellowship, we still have the assurance of the Holy Spirit that “the Lord knows those who are his.” (2 Timothy 2:19)

Our brother asks further, “How can we be led to unity by men who were rabid ‘Anti-located preacher,’ ‘Anti-Christian college,’ and ‘Anti-preach to the church fifteen years ago. . .?” Is it not quite probable that some of these “rabid Anti” brethren, having pushed the principle of breaking fellowship with everyone with whom we may disagree to its logical conclusion, have seen the bitter fruits of this kind of thinking and have, perhaps, learned something in the process? At least it appears to me from a causal reading of some of their own literature that this is their own analysis of the change in their thinking and attitude. And without intending to imply for one minute that most of us would agree with all of the conclusions which they have reached, I would nonetheless venture to suggest that, if we would stop throwing rocks at them long enough to listen to what they are trying to tell us, we might learn something from their experience.

The Restoration Movement was launched some one hundred and fifty years ago. Since then we have suffered no less than seven or eight major divisions. Most of these have occurred because one or both parties to some dispute have insisted that those with whom they differed must be disfellowshipped. To say the least, this is a tragic history for a movement which started out with the grand objective of uniting all Christians in one body! It is said that the visitor to Westminister Abbey may read these words chiseled in a stone of the floor: “May the rich blessings of God rest on every one—be he Englishman, American, or Turk—who will help to heal the open sores of the world.” And as I look at our poor divided brotherhood I am moved to exclaim: And may the rich blessings of God rest on every brother be he mainstream, left stream, or rightstream—who will bind up the wounds in the Restoration Movement and who will heal the open sores in the body of Christ!

“And it is time,” says our brother, “for faithful brethren to stand up and speak out.” Yes, it is. When a paper that has given to the brotherhood such yeoman service as has the Christian Chronicle is characterized as a “liberal tool” simply because it doesn’t slant its reporting the way someone thinks it should (a funny word—that word “liberal!”)Everybody seems to be using it these days but nobody bothers to define it!) When the practice of branding anything or anybody with whom we may differ as a “liberal” without bothering to say what we mean by “liberal” is becoming more and more prevalent When sitting down with those with whom we differ and trying to resolve those differences is characterized as “‘dialogue’ with the devil and his disciples”When good brethren, who are concerned about the plight of the Negro and of the poor and downtrodden, and who are trying to get the church to speak out against “Jim Crow” and racial and economic oppression and to stand up and be counted on the side of plain right and human decency, are branded as modernist and freethinkers by implied guilt-by-association tactics—When things as widely divergent as the modernism of Unitarians and the involvement of some brethren in the struggle for human rights is discussed in the same general context and the impression is left that such involvement is wrong on principle—And when one comes with a proposal that brethren who don’t think just like we think they ought to think or fellowship just who we think they ought to fellowship be “soberly repudiated” it is indeed time for all faithful brethren to speak out!

It would appear that we have among us some who are determined to mould a brotherhood consensus, and then to drive from the brotherhood, or discredit as “liberals,” all who do not agree with them. I may be wrong in this, and I pray to God that I am, but from such articles as those considered, it would seem that this is the direction in which the thinking of some is headed. And if it is, and we have among us those who are thinking of going on a “witch hunt,” then it is most assuredly time for all among us who cherish our Restoration heritage of Gospel Liberty to speak Out before they succeed in binding on the Churches of Christ a minutely detailed statement of faith which, albeit unwritten, is as destructive of the right of free inquiry and private judgment as were the confessions of faith of a century and a half ago. May God give us eyes to see it before it is too late.—Rt. 3, Radford, Va. 24141