UNITY MEETING IN ABILENE

They didn’t call it that, but that is what it was, and a glorious one it was. It was officially the First Annual Preacher’s Workshop, an unlikely name for what may prove to be the most important development in our recent history as a brotherhood. Upwards of 600 preachers gathered for the affair, and it was for preachers only, and that was emphasized. No one without a wedding garment was thrown out that we could tell, but it was made clear that only preachers were to be there, which created some discussion on just whom that included. I heard one brother suggest that brethren in. general should rise up and affirm the priesthood of all believers and attend the affair. But there was really no ambiguity about the matter, for we all know who “our preachers” are. It just may be that we are not as candid as are others about our clergy-laity posture.

No tape recorders were allowed and none was bootlegged in that we could tell. J. D. Thomas, who directed the affair, also strongly urged that there be no publication of what was said there. If anyone chooses to publish his own remarks, he is to do so with no reference to it having been presented as part of the Workshop. While all this may be overly cautious, I appreciate the intentions that motivate the restrictions, and I shall respect J. D.’s wishes and restrict myself in this report to general observations. But it was a gathering of moment, one that we will surely have lasting effect upon our leadership, and it is a story that deserves to be told. J. D. wants the participants to feel free to say what they will, and he believes an airing of the procedures through tape and pen would discourage this. It says something about our internal affairs as a brotherhood that such precautions would be necessary, doesn’t it?

In calling it a unity meeting I am saying that it was strikingly similar to many of the unity sessions that some of us have been sharing in for years. If it was a workshop, then it was a workshop in unity, love, fellowship, and togetherness. The name suits me fine. I just hope that no anti-workshop element emerges and the thing die aborning. J. D. admitted to entering into it with some trepidation, and he conceded in his initial remarks that it might be the first and last such meeting. That was to say that it was no ordinary workshop, which is about as uncontroversial as a ladies’ tea. It was a unity meeting that brought together several of the major wings of our fractured brotherhood, and it was conducted right there on the ACC campus, with the blessings and support of the administration. And I say three cheers for ACC, and that does not include the last hurrah! I predict that the response will be so tremendously favorable that it will be difficult for the men on the Hill to revert to less inspiring programs.

This was of course a gathering, for the most part, of what I choose to call “the main line Church of Christ,” but there was a respectable representation of non-class and non-cooperative brethren, and at least one prominent brother from the Christian Church. But a meeting like this serves to show how much healthy diversity there is even in “the main-line.” As I sat listening to one session that had to do with the nature of truth, where both sides were represented by “the main-line,” I thought of an article I might write on The Great Divide in the Church of Christ, for these men were miles apart in their theology even though still “in fellowship” with each other. Others on the program were “out of fellowship” with the main-line, but the differences, measured in terms of classes and cooperative efforts, were superficial in comparison with those separated by the great divide. The “Great Divide” among us, if ever I write the article, will be the right and left of theological perspective. A better way of saying it would be in the words of a brother from up East, who said to me after listening to the session referred to above, some such words as “They have different Gods.” Or we might say it is a different attitude toward grace and sin, toward Christ, toward truth. It is indeed a different religion, even if both sides are mainline Church of Christ.

There is nothing new about this, of course. It is the same story with every evolving denomination, or “religious body” if that innocuous term denomination is still offensive to you. For example, a radical right-winger like Carl McInryre, who is a rebel among the Presbyterians, is closer in his theological posture to the Texas-style, Texas-size Southern Baptists than he is to most Presbyterians. Just so, some of our young princes, and they are not all so young, are actually closer to someone like Keith Miller, author of The Taste of New Wine, or Elton Trueblood than they are to the rank and file Church of Christ ministers, such as we have in Dallas. An illustration of this was the response I heard from these young princes to “the keynote address” given by the prominent editor from Austin, whom I think deserves some such honorific title as “Dean of Texas’ Churches of Christ.” He acts like our Dean and he is treated that way, and I’m not being critical. Anyway, I found myself much more appreciative of what he said than they, for he said some important things about uniry. But it was what he didn’t say that he should have said, as well as the implication of what he did say (such as unity being predicated upon “the pure doctrine,” which of course means our interpretation) that turned them off. It was an interesting study: there they were “in fellowship” and there I was, something less than accepted, and I was closer to the Dean than they were, more sympathetic and more appreciative. It is “the Great Divide” and it is far more significant than whether one is organic or inorganic.

The music question was discussed with a professor from Cincinnati Bible Seminary responding to an ACC professor. Women’s work was discussed with a non-class brother exchanging views with a main-liner. The institutional question was aired (orphanages, Herald of Truth) with the negative view ably represented by a staff writer of Gospel Guardian and responded to by an ACC professor.

A black brother exchanged views with a white brother on the validity of our Restoration plea, with an obvious desire to make social action a part of that plea, suggesting that the plea is not valid without it. The relevance of the church and the nature of truth were discussed by men who were poles apart in their basic theses and attitudes, making for exciting give and take. A brother from Florida College traded ideas with an Abilene minister on the church’s social responsibilities, and modern versions of the Bible were criticized by a “King James’ man” and defended by a scholar from Harding.

I saw drama in the discussion on truth and tolerance, for it posed a confrontation between what I would call “the new look” with the old, one of our bold ones alongside a “keeper of orthodoxy” from Dallas. To the one truth is never quite within our grasp, so we must ever long and search for it, showing tolerance for those who struggle with us in the quest. This was unthinkable to the other who sees truth in much simpler terms, for it is a matter of taking the Book for what it says, which is of course what us good Church of Christ folk have been doing all along.

The association was delightful and wholesome, making for a healthy-minded religion, to use William James’ term, instead of what we so often have. The students were home on vacation, leaving the dorms available to preachers who like to save money. There were two or three of the old boys around whom I had debated back when, and while one of them would have taken up where we left off 15 years ago with a little encouragement, it was a different atmosphere this time.

We are a different people than we were just a few years ago. The Holy Spirit, who was persistent in such problem cases as Peter and Jonah, is working on us. The fruit of his effort was evident at Abilene. Thanks be to God! --- the Editor